資料：1924年5月29日《Hong Kong Daily Press》第5頁
THE UN LUNG MOTOR BUS COLLISION.
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE.
The case in which two motor-bus drivers are indicated for manslaughter in connection with the Un Lung motor-bus collision when four passengers were killed, was continued at the Criminal Sessions yesterday.
The Manager of the Chun Hing Motor-bus Company said that both vehicles belonged to his company. On the morning of the collision both were tested on Laichikok Hill. The brakes were then in order and if they were out of order when examined after the collision it must have been due to the collision.
The witness was not cross-examined.
Sergt. Stimson, in charge of Ping Shan Police Station, described the scene of the collision.
Witness agreed with Mr. Prosser that from the marks on the bridge wall, the bus going to Un Lung bore away to the left before the collision took place. In his opinion it was likely that the bus hit the wall before colliding with the bus coming in the opposite direction.
Further cross-examined the witness gave it as his opinion that each bus must have been doing 35 miles per hour.
Mr. Prosser: That is your opinion?
The witness: Yes, and also my experience.
He further said bus No. 1314 had been moved to clear the road for traffic when Mr. Smith, the motor expert arrived. In moving it care was taken not to touch the foot brake.
Mr. J.Smith, acting Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Kowloon-Canton Railway, gave evidence as to examining the buses at 6 p.m. on the day of the collision. Regarding bus No. 1204 the hand brake had not been used. The underside of the handle of this brake was covered with dust; if the brake had been used the impression of a man’s hand would have been left. The foot brake was out of order and needed adjusting. As to bus No. 1314, the hand brake was in order. Witness did not think it was likely that the brake was on at the time of the collision. The footbrake was not in order. In his opinion the drivers should have taken the precaution not to meet on the bridge.
Mr. Prosser: I put to you, Mr. Smith, that no man in his senses would go in the streets of Hongkong with both handbrake and footbrake out of order?
The witness: Yes; and yet they do.
How do you say the buses were stopped on this particular occasion? – By the collision.
You say the foot brakes were entirely out of order? – With so much use they would want adjusting.
I put it to you that if both foot brakes were out of order it was an extraordinary coincidence? – Yes, it is; but when you know the supervision given to them it is not so extraordinary.
Witness further said that the superstructure of the buses was flimsy.
THE DEFENCE.
The first prisoner, Lo Shang, driver of bus No. 1204, then gave evidence. He said he first sighted the other bus a little over 40 yards away. He was slightly nearer the bridge than the other car. As he continued he noticed that they looked like meeting on the bridge and he slowed down. The collision occurred just as the front of the car passed the bridge, and it occurred, he said, because the oncoming car swerved towards him. He considered he had the right of way. The accident would never have happened had he (witness) not slowed down. He used his foot brake only that day because it was sufficiently strong to stop the car. It was strong in the morning, but gradually got weaker. At his last stop before the bridge he pulled the car up in six yards.
Witness later admitted he used his hand brake several times during the day, though only when he wished to stop the car altogether.
The first prisoner, cross-examined by the Attorney-General, said the dust on the handle of the hand brake must have accumulated while the bus was lying by the road.
Prisoner, when asked by the Attorney-General as to why he did not use the hand brake when he saw the collision was imminent, said he was steering with one hand and the other was on the horn.
“Would it not have been better to have put the brake on than sound the horn?” asked the Attorney-General.
Prisoner replied he thought that the other driver was going to avoid his car. He thought he had time to pass the bridge before the other bus came up. His speed was 18 miles per hour and at the bridge he had slowed down to 15 miles.
The second prisoner, driver of the bus going towards Un Lung, then went into the box. He said it was his third trip that day. On that day he used the foot brake all day because the hand brake was out of order. The foot brake was not quite in order.
Asked by Mr. Prosser to explain the latter statement, witness said that he had to put on the brake some time before he could pull up.
When he reached the bridge he saw the danger and swerved so as to allow the other bus to pass. The collision then took place.
Mr. Campbell Prosser than announced to the Court that he had sent his expert across to Kowloon to examine the buses but he was informed they had been repaired. He would like the prosecution to explain what had happened to the buses.
The Attorney-General: They are my friend’s buses. They are not mine.
Mr. Prosser said that in view of the serious charge of manslaughter he contended that they should have been retained as exhibits. Neither his Lordship nor the Jury nor himself had had an opportunity of examining them.
His Lordship: It would not have been the slightest value to me if I had seen them, or to you, Mr. Prosser.
“How long age was this accident?” asked his Lordship.
On receiving a reply that the date was April 6th his Lordship asked if the buses had been repaired.
It was decided to recall the manager on the point.
The manager, recalled, said that one was repaired a few days ago and the other was still under repairs.
Mr. Prosser: Did the police ever make any application to have these buses kept in that state until after the trial?
Witness: No.
Cross-examined by the Attorney-General, witness said that he had received many claims for damages in respect of this collision. These were placed in the hands of Messrs. Deacons, the solicitors. He did not think it necessary to retain the buses in their damaged state in view of these pending actions.
The case will be proceeded with this afternoon.
翻譯：
元朗巴士相撞
矛盾的證據
發生於元朗(Un Lung)的巴士對撞造成4名乘客死亡事件，兩名司機均被控告誤殺，案件昨日於刑事裁判處繼續審理。
泉興巴士公司(Chun Hing Motor-bus Company)經理表示涉事巴士均屬其公司所有，於事發當日發車前曾駛往荔枝角山路試車，當時所有制動系統正常。事故後發現的制動系統失靈相信是因為對撞所造成的。
這位證人沒被盤問。
屏山警署警長史汀生沙展(Sergt. Stimson)描述了事發現場情況。
根據橋邊護牆的痕跡，以及往元朗巴士於對撞前向左閃避，證人認同了保羅瑟先生(Mr. Campbell Prosser)的觀點，巴士於對撞前先撞上了橋邊護牆了。
當進行進一步盤問後，證人個人認為兩車當時車速為時速35英里。
保羅瑟先生：「這是你的看法嗎？」
證人：「以我的經驗來說，是的。」
他補充說，在汽車專家史密夫先生(Mr. J.Smith)抵達前，1314號巴士因阻塞交通而被移開了，他們亦特別小心沒有去接觸腳掣。
九廣鐵路署理總工程師史密夫先生作證，他於事發當日下午6時驗車。1204號巴士手掣未曾被使用，手掣把手下方佈滿塵埃，如果手掣有被使用，手掣上理應留有手部的痕跡；腳掣則是失靈，需要調整。至於1314號巴士，手掣運作正常，但證人卻認為手掣於事發時沒被使用；腳掣亦是失靈。證人認為兩車司機應預先評估車輛會否於橋上相遇。
保羅瑟先生：「你認為呢？史密夫先生，不會有人在手掣腳掣皆失靈時把車輛駛出香港的街道上吧？」
證人：「對呀。但他們就這樣做了。」
「你認為兩台巴士因何事而停在那個位置？」「因為對撞。」
「你認為兩車腳掣都已失靈？」「在多次使用後已需要調整。」
「兩車腳掣同時失靈，你認為這是否偶然的巧合？」「是的，但考慮到他們的駕駛態度時，就會認為事件不屬偶然了。」
證人補充指兩車骨架皆十分脆弱。
被告作供
首被告1204號巴士司機羅生(Lo Shang)上庭作供，他在相距約40碼距離時注意到對頭巴士，當他繼續前進時發現兩車可能會於橋上相撞，於是將巴士減速，當他的車輛剛駛離橋面時，對頭車卻扭向他導致意外發生了。他(證人)認為當時如沒有減速，意外就不會發生。他當日只用了腳掣，因為腳掣的力度足以剎停車輛，當天早上腳掣良好，但剎車力度隨後開始減弱，在到達橋樑前對上一個巴士站，他用了6碼距離剎停車輛。
證人隨後亦表示他也用了手掣，是當車輛完全停定時才有使用。
首被告於接受律政司盤問時，表示手掣上的塵埃一定是巴士被放於路旁時才沾上的。
當律政司問及為何看到事故即將發生時卻不去使用手掣，被告表示當時正忙於一手控制軚盤，一手按動響咹。
律政司提問：「會不會啟動制動系統會比響咹更為妥當？」
被告則認為當時對頭巴士會避開他，他在對頭巴士抵達前有足夠時間通過橋面，他當時車速為時速18英里，當駛至橋面上則減速至15英里。
次被告是往元朗巴士的司機，他走上證人席並作供，他當時正在走第三轉路線，當天他只用了腳掣，因為手掣已經失靈，腳掣運作亦不太良好。
保羅瑟先生要求證人為證詞作最一步解釋，證人則說他要多次啟動制動系統才能把車輛剎停。
當他駛至橋面時，他意識到危險，立即把車輛轉向以讓對頭巴士駛過，但意外卻繼續發生了。
保羅瑟先生隨後向法庭表示，他曾派出專家前往九龍要求驗車，卻被告知車輛已經維修完畢。他希望檢控方對巴士狀況作出解釋。
律政司：「這是我朋友的巴士，又不是我的巴士。」
保羅瑟先生認為，在面對誤殺這種嚴重的指控時，證物應如同展品般好好保管。現在連法官閣下、陪審團，甚至他本人都沒有機會再檢查車輛了。
法官閣下：「其實對我或你來說，現在檢查車輛已經毫無意義吧，保羅瑟先生。」
法官閣下問道：「意外發生至今有多久了？」
當收到答覆為4月6日後，法官閣下要求知道車輛是否已經作出維修。
為了知道答案，於是傳召了經理作供。
經理作供，指其中一台已於幾天前維修完畢，另一台則正在維修。
保羅瑟先生：「警方曾否要求讓巴士保持其損毀狀態直至審訊完結為止？」
證人：「沒有啊。」
在律政司的盤問下，證人表示他們於事發後收到多宗損壞賠款的要求，現已交由的近律師行(Messrs. Deacons)處理，他認為在面對多宗賠款要求下，不應讓巴士繼續保持其損毀狀態。
審訊將於今午繼續。