Charge of Overcrowding Dismissed: Difficulty in Counting Passengers The Shanghai Electric Construction Ca., Ld, were summoned at M. Police Curt on Tuesday, befor Mr. G. W. King, for carry! greater number of passengers than the number authorized, on car BAS at 11.5 a.m, on the 2st. ultimo, Mr. E. T, Maitland appeared for the prosecution and Ward for the company. ub-Inspr. Milne gave evidence that when the tramear arrived at the Nanking Road-Szechuen Road stopping. plice he saw it was overcrowded. There were two foreign 47 passengers, foreign Chi while in the Zrd class section there were 21 passengers, and seven Chinese standing on the total of ig the authorized number of passengers as 57. The trailer was not crowded:
In answer to Mr, Ward, witness said that he counted the passengers from the outside of the ear just be fore it stopped, counting from one Jide and going' round to the other ide to check.
How did you know you did not count the same people twice?—Be T knew what Iwas doing.
instructions are to render every assistance to the Tramway Company?—I generally do.
Did you point out to the conduct: that the car was over-erowied?—
Those were not my instructions 0 that day.
Did'nt you think it was your duty, having received instructions to Tender assistance, to tell the conductor there were too many people on the ear?—The offence had already been committed.
In answer to further questions, witness maintained that he had ae-curately counted the number of passengers. The entry in his note Dock was written with different pencils, the explanation being that he afterwards made an addition—the number of the ear and the time. The figures '68 which had been scratched out referred to another case, a motor-ear.
This concluded the evidence for the prosecution.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.