Personal information about John William Thomas Allee

Below is all the information we have about John William Thomas Allee. As far as we know, the information is correct. However, if you find any errors or have additional information, certificates or pictures, please contact us so that we can update this page. Thank you.


Burial Information

Name on burial register:
   John William Thomas Allee
Burial register image
Click image to enlarge
Age at death:
   34
Date of burial:
   19 November 1920
Abode at death:
(according to burial register)
   Kingsbridge Road, Newbury
Burial register information:
  
Book number: 1917
Page number: 047
Record number: 9973
Official at burial:
   Charles.V. Pike
     
Comments:
   Death registered in Wantage district
Source of information:
  Burial Register

Memorial Details

No memorial information available at this time.


 

 

Obituaries and Newspaper announcements

John Allee
Article source:    Newbury Weekly News and BMD
Date of source:    18 November 1920
Copyright:    © Newbury Weekly News

Transcription:

 

JOHN ALLEE

 

(John was knocked down and killed by a car at Horsley in 1920 aged 34 years. His grave is marked by a broken column. He was married to Mabel and had two young children named Margaret and William John. He was a cattle dealer and widow was awarded £3000 in damages for his death.)


 

SHOCKING FATALITY

SAVED HIS FATHER AND LOST HIS OWN LIFE

 

          Newbury was shocked on Tuesday morning by the news of the tragic death of  Mr. John W.T. Allee, of Kingsbridge-road. He left his home at 5.30 a.m., in the full health and vigour of early manhood, and within a short space of time he was lying dead in a distant hospital. He had driven in his car to Reading, and there took train to Guildford, where he met his father, Mr. William R. Allee, who is now residing at Liphook. Father and son drove to Horsley Towers, some distance out of Guildford, on the way to Leatherhead, where they rented some keep to graze a number of cattle. Their purpose was to sort out some animals prior to sending them into Guildford cattle market. They were standing in the road by the side of a Ford van, giving directions about the cattle, when John shouted “Look out, father” and pushed him in front of his own car. The next thing was for the father to see his son's body some distance along the road under an Austin car. John was then alive and just able to speak, saying “I'm done for, dad.” Mr. Allee senior, conveyed his son to Guildford County Hospital, but he died whilst being removed from the car.

           John  Allee was well-known in the town and a wide district as a cattle dealer, an excellent judge of quality, a keen business man, with a genial disposition, and a readiness to help any deserving cause. Prior to the war he was in Mesopotamia, in the service of Sir John Jackson and Co., engaged in drainage work on the Euphrates. When war broke out he was at home, having been invalided with typhoid. He at once offered his services to the Indian government as an interpreter, having a good knowledge of  Arabic. Owing to his previous attack of typhoid he was not accepted. His brother James was mobilised with the Berks Yeomanry in August, 1914, and he went with them to Egypt, being afterwards transferred to the R.A.S.C., in which he was made a captain.

 

          John remained at home to carry on the business, and was active in securing a supply of cattle for the local markets. He was married and leaves a widow and two children of six and eight, with whom greatest sympathy is felt in their terrible bereavement.

           The funeral will take place to-morrow (Friday), service at the Baptist Church at 2pm., interment at the Newtown-road cemetery.

 Newbury Weekly News 18 November 1920

 BMD

John William [Thomas] Allee born Jun Q 1886

John W.T. Allee Died Dec. Q 1920 aged 34 ref. Guildford 2a 134

 John W.T. Allee and Mabel Munday married Dec. Q 1912

 

Children:

 

Margaret M. born Sept Q 1914

 

William J. born Jun Q 1916

 

 

 

Mabel Allee died Mar Q 1925 aged 37

 

This obituary entry is awaiting verification.
 
 
John Allee
Article source:    Newbury Weekly News
Date of source:    25 November 1920
Copyright:    © Newbury Weekly News

Transcription:

 

Accused before the Magistrates

 Gerald Garlick, of Rowbarns Farm, East Horsley, Surrey, was formally charged at the Guildford County Police Court on Friday morning on the Coroner’s warrant with the manslaughter of Mr. John William Thomas Allee.  Mr. W. Triggs Turner, solicitor, of Guildford, appeared for the defendant.

 P.S. Claydon gave formal evidence as to being present at the inquest when the verdict was returned.  He subsequently arrested Mr. Garlick who, when charged, replied, “I am not guilty”.

Deputy Chief Constable Page applied for a remand until Friday, for the Director of Public Prosecutions to be communicated with. 

 This was granted and the defendant was allowed bail himself and his father in the sum of £100 each.

 Full details of Inquest

 The fact that the inquest concluded at half-past eight on Wednesday night last, just as we were preparing to go to press, prevented us from giving more than a condensed account of the proceedings.  The sad occurrence has around so much interest that we now give the evidence in full.  The enquiry took place at the Surrey County Hospital, before the Guildford Borough Coroner (Major F.W. Smallpiece), and a jury.  Mr. A.G. Lunt, a member of the firm of Messrs. Shield and Mackarness, solicitors of Petersfield, appeared on behalf of the deceased’s family, whilst Mr. W. Triggs Turner, solicitor, of Guildford watched the case on behalf of Mr. Garlick, the driver of the car.  Deputy Chief Constable Page and the Surrey Constabulary, was also present during the proceedings.

 The Coroner, opening the inquest, said all the witnesses had made statements as to the speed of the car, and this would be a point for the jury to decide.  He did not wish to pre-judge the case, but the jury would also have to consider whether it was one of manslaughter.

 

Before the witnesses were called a survey plan of the spot where the accident occurred, made that day by Mr. James Herbert Norris, architect and surveyor, of High-street, Guildford was put in.

 Mr. W.R. Allee’s Evidence

 The first evidence as to the occurrence was given by Mr. W.R. Allee, father of the deceased, a cattle dealer, of Catton, Liphook.  He said that on Tuesday morning he went with the deceased and three other men in a motor van to Horsley Towers, arriving there about 8 o’clock, to select some cattle for the market.  He sat with the driver, and deceased and two men were behind.  The van stopped on the main road facing Horsley Towers, and witness got out.  He saw his son and the men moving in the van in order to alight, and he himself went to the front of the van to speak to the driver.  He next heard his son should “Look out, father”, and almost before the words were out of his mouth, a car whizzed by, and his son was underneath.  Witness did not hear any horn sounded.

 At this stage, the witness, stating that he picked his boy up, broke down completely, but was able afterwards to answer Mr. Triggs Turner’s questions.  They stopped, he said, outside the Duke of Wellington public house close to the grass by the roadside.  The car which knocked his boy down came from the direction of Horsley station.  Whether it was on the right side of the road he could not say, because when his son shouted he jumped himself, and did not see the car until it had passed the entrance to Horsley Towers.

 “My boy saved my life, there is no doubt about that” (Mr. Allee added)  “He shouted and I jumped back or I should have been under it”.  The diver of the car returned and spoke to wtiness’s driver, and he heard Mr. Garlick say: “No, I am not going now, you ----- fool; I will go presently”.

 

Mr. Triggs Turner suggested to Mr. Allee that what Mr. Garlick said was that he would take deceased straight to hospital, but Mr. Allee said this suggest ion was made by some of the bystanders.

 

Mr. Triggs Turner: Do you suggest that, having run over him he deliberately came back and said “I am not going now you ---- fool!”.  Why should he said that?  Mr. Allee replied that was what he could not understand, and added that Mr. Garlick did offer to drive the injured man to hospital after he had been placed in witness’s van.

 Mr. Turner: Did you tell the doctor that your son tried to cross the road in front of the car? – No.  I did not see him.

 

What did you tell the doctor? – I told him that he was knocked down by a car by Horsley Towers.

 

The Foreman: How did your son get out of the Car? – From behind.

 

Alleged Callous Conduct

 

Arthur Greenough, of Toll House, Liphook, a motor driver in the employ of the late witness, said they arrived at East Horsley Towers about 8 o’clock.  He stopped the van on the near side of the main road facing the entrance to the Towers.  Two men and the deceased got out of the back of the van, and Mr. Allee’s son, and himself got out in front of the near side.  One man and the deceased came up along the off-side of the van towards the Horsley Towers entrance.  One man crossed over the road to the gates of Horsley Towers.  Just then, Mr. Allee turned to him and said “Take the two men to the other gate and have those cattle out first”.  Just then he heard deceased shout out “Look up, father”.  Witness looked towards Horsley Tower gates, and he saw the off-side front wheel hit the deceased.

 Deceased rolled round and round under the car, and was taken on ten yards.  Witness also saw the off hind wheels pass over the body.  He did not hear the car sound its hooter.  The car pulled up 42 strides away.

 After that, while they were getting deceased into the van, the driver of the car came back to him and witness asked him if he was going to Guildford.  He said “No you ----- fool, I am going home, and will come to Guildford presently”.  Witness asked him if he would take the injured man on, and his answer was “Damn the man.  Is he hurt much?.  Witness replied “Yes”.  With that witness started his van and turned round and came into Guildford.

 In answer to the Coroner, witness aid the first he saw of the car was when it hit the deceased.

 

Cross-examined, witness said he saw the marks of the skidding wheels on the road.

 

Mr. Turner: If you had looked, you had a clear view? – Yes for about 80 yards”.

 

Do you say that this car came 80 yards without you seeing or hearing anything?” – Yes.

 

Was the car on the near side of the road? – Yes it was about three feet from the near side of the road.

 Did you see the deceased try and make a jump? – He threw up his hands just as the car hit him.

 

The Foreman: What was the width of the road? – Twenty feet.

A Juror: Where was Mr. Allee’s van? – Right by the edge of the grass.

 An Independent Witness

 

Walter Ivey, a painter of Bridgeford Cottages, Ripley, who was standing on the corner of the Duke of Welling public house when the accident occurred, said he saw the deceased get out of the van and start to cross the road towards Horsley Towers entrance just as a private car came flying past from the direction of Horsley railway station.  The deceased saw the car close upon him, sprang round, and tried to get clear, but was too late.

 

By Mr. Turner: Deceased had got halfway across the road when the car struck him, and he tried to jump back when it was two yards from him.

 William Shepherd, Osler at the Duke of Wellington, said he saw the accident from the green outside the public house.  Three men started to cross the road, and he thought one got across.  Deceased took two steps into the road when the car struck him.  He did not hear a horn sounded.

 Cross-examined: Deceased hesitated, and the car struck him.  This would have happened whichever way he had gone.

 Edward Poulter, a young cattle driver, who was one of the occupants of the motor van, said that as they were about to cross the road deceased shouted “Look up!” and instantly the car struck him.  He did not hear the car give any warning.

 Arthur George Searle, living at 138 Walnut-tree-close, Guildford, employed by Mr. Allee, was another of the party.  Deceased had started to cross the road when he was struck, just after he had shouted “Look out, father!”  He saw the car about fifteen yards away.  It was travelling at the rate of twenty-five to thirty miles an hour.  He did not hear a horn blown.

 

Mr. Garlick Gives Evidence

 Gerald Garlick, who volunteered through his solicitor to give evidence, said the accident happened close to his home, and he knew the spot well.  He was driving a 15 h.p. Austin car from the direction of Horsley station, and estimated that through the village his speed was 20 miles an hour.  About 50 yards from the corner by the Duke of Welling, he slowed down and sound his Klaxon horn twice.  As he turned the corner, he saw two or three men standing on the road in front of the green by a motor van, and sound his horn again.  One or two of the men looked round at him and stepped back nearer witness’s off side.  By that time he could see round the corner that the road was clear, and that he had plenty of room to pass, so he accelerated.  When he was within about four yards of the men, tee deceased car from behind the other two men and started to run across the road.  Witness put out his clutch and applied his brake.  Deceased, instead of going straight across the road, when he was about three parts of the way over, jumped back, and in doing so, slipped.  Witness could not possibly avoid him and ran over him.  Judging from the time the front and back wheels passed over him he dragged the deceased a few yards.  He though he stopped 25 yards from the accident.  He left the car there and ran back to the deceased.  One of the men, standing round him said “Get a doctor”, and witness replied “No, I will take him straight to hospital”.  He went back and fetched his car for that purpose.  He reversed, and looking back to see where he was going noticed the others placing the deceased in the van.  Seeing that he was more comfortable there on the straw than he would be in the car, he gave Greenough his card, and said he would just go home to tell his people what had happened, and then go straight to the hospital.  This he did.

 

The Coroner: Did Greenough ask you if you were going to Guildford? – Yes.

 And did you say “No, you ----- fool; I will go presently”? – No, I never used such an expression.

 Did Greenough ask you if you take deceased to Guildford? – I suggested that myself.

 

Did you say “D----- the man.  Is he hurt much”? – No.

 

The Coroner questions witness as to his speed, and he replied that, not carrying a speedometer, he would not like to commit himself, but he thought on the corner he was travelling at about 12 miles an hour.  When he hit the deceased he was probably getting up to 20 miles an hour again, as he saw the road was clear.  After the accident, he saw that the starting handle of the car was bent back.

 P.C. Brant, of the Surrey Constabulary, said that on the afternoon of the accident, he went with the witness Greenough, who pointed out the spot where the accident happened and where the car stopped.  He measured it with a 10 foot rood and found the distance was 42 yards.

 Died When He Reached Hospital

 Dr. Drew, house surgeon at the Royal Surrey County Hospital, said that although deceased was alive when the van reached the hospital front, he was dead when admitted.  A leg and broken and the skull was fractured.  Death was due probably to internal haemorrhage caused by a ruptured spleen and liver.  The doctor added that Garlick came to the hospital immediately afterwards, and he told him that Mr. Allee had died.  He said he would go and report himself to the police.

 A Serious Case

 

“This is a very serious case”, said the Coroner, in summing up, and he added that if in the commission of an illegal act a man killed another he was guilty of manslaughter.  The only illegal at which Mr. Garlick could have committed was to drive at an excessive speed.  Mr. Garlick admitted driving at the rate of 20 miles an hour, and a witness had calculated his speed at 25 to 30 miles.  An important piece of evidence tending to prove the car was travelling at an excessive speed was the fact that it was not stopped under 42 yards.  That was said after the accident was not material to the issue.  If Mr. Garlick used the language attributed to him it was brutal; it might have been said, but even if it were, it had no bearing on this case.

 

The Jury was absent for ten minutes, and, upon their return, the foreman announced that they were unanimous in a verdict of “Manslaughter”, and expressed their sympathy with the relatives of the deceased.

 

The Coroner concurred with the expression of sympathy, and committed Garlick for trial at the Surrey Assizes, bail being allowed in his own and father’s surety of £100 each.

 Also:   John Allee was born in 08/03/1886.  He married Mable Mundy on 27th November 1912 and they had 2 children. Mable was born on in June 1886 and died 10/01/1925.  He left effects to the value of £5,034 11s. 9d to his wife.

 NWN 25/11/1920

b. 08/03/1886

d. 16/11/1920

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This obituary entry is awaiting verification.
 
 
John William Allee
Article source:   
Date of source:   
Copyright:    © 

Transcription:

 

JOHN WILLIAM THOMAS ALLEE

THE ALLEE MOTOR TRAGEDY

DRIVER CHARGED WITH MANSLAUGHTER

SIR EDWARD MARSHALL HALL'S DEFENCE

 

The Accused Acquitted

 

Charged with feloniously killing and slaying John William Thomas Allee, Gerald Garlick of Rowbarns Manor, East Horsley, was put on a his trial at the Surrey Assizes in Guildford.

 

The case created an extraordinary amount of interest, and the large public gallery in the Borough Hall, where the trial was held, was crowded to overflowing, whilst many ladies were allocated seats on either side of the Judge's bench. Additional interest was imparted to the trial when it became know that Sir Edward Marshall Hall, the great criminal lawyer, had been engaged to defend Garlick.

 Sir Edward, who is Recorder for Guildford, has been a commanding figure to all recent cause celèbre. It was he who secured the acquittal of the accused in what was known as the Green Bicycle Murder, and his masterly defence in the recent Kidwelly case brought him even greater fame, while he is also retained for the defence of the accused in the Eastbourne murder charge which is to be heard next Monday. Since the days before the war, when he appeared at Newbury as the star orator at the Bank Holiday Conservative Fête, Sir Edward has somewhat filled out and grown grey.

 

Sir Edward's Methods

 In the present trial he adopted the suavilar in modo method in his cross examination of  the witnesses. By questions put in a friendly and apparently artless manner he attempted to cajole them into admissions in variance with their previous evidence. As a matter of fact he did not greatly shake their testimony. It was evident through the proceedings that his great effort was to be in his address to the jury. This was a veritable torrent of impassioned pleading, for he spoke for an hour, and most of the time he was travelling at 200 words a minute. In striking contrast to this was the quiet judicial summing up by Mr. Justice Avery, who, in his scarlet robes, the poise of his head, and the manner he sat up with a very straight back, reminded one of a very prim and particular grands dame of the Victorian era. On the one hand the eminent criminal lawyer, by the very wealth of the detail of his speech, sought to raise doubts in the minds of the jury, whilst on the other, the learned judge, in a precise and painstaking manner, deliberately weighed up the evidence, and pointed out to the jury their duty.

The Prosecuting Counsel

 

The prosecuting counsel, Mr. Cecil Whitely, had previously presented his view of the case in a cold, calculating manner, emphasising the fact that there were five witnesses who deposed to the unfortunate man being knocked down by the motor, all of whom5 spoke of it travelling at a great pace, the accused alone supporting the theory for the defence, which was that the deceased ran across the road directly in front of the motor, and in trying to jump back, slipped and fell underneath.

 Following the Judge's summing up, the jury considered their verdict, and being unable to come to a conclusion, retired to a room adjoining the court for further deliberation. While this was in progress a groan and a fall were heard, and the services of a doctor who had given evidence in the case and was still in Court, were hurriedly sought. It transpired that one of the jurors had been seized with a fit. After three quarters of an hour's absence the jury returned into Court, and the Foreman announced a verdict of “Not Guilty,” the accused being accordingly discharged. The proceedings commenced at twelve o'clock, and it was not until half past six that the verdict was given.

 Garlick on being released received congratulations of his friends. He is a man of medium height, smartly dressed in a dark grey suit with a black tie, black hair well brushed back. His age was given as 24, but with his lined face he looked quite 30. He followed the proceedings intently throughout, most of the time with his chin in one hand.

 Speech for Prosecution

 

Mr Cecil Whitely, in opening the case for the prosecution, said that the prisoner, Gerald Garlick, was a man of 24 years of age, who lived at Rowbarns Manor East Horsley, and was defended by his learned friend, Sir Edward Marshall Hall. He was charged on the indictment with having on November 16th unlawfully killed a man named John William Thomas Allee. On that day, at eight o'clock in the morning, the deceased, his father, and some other men, all came in a Ford van from Guildford to Horsley Towers in order to get cattle from the Park there for the market. They stopped opposite the Horsley Towers entrance, at the top end of the triangular piece of grass, the width of the road at this point being exactly twenty feet. Six witnesses would be called as to what happened: Mr. Allee senior, and three men who were with him, and two independent witnesses, who were standing near, Walter Ivey, a painter of Ripley, and William Shepherd, ostler at the Duke of Wellington public house, which was close by. They would tell the Court that Poulter, one of the drovers in the van, proceeded to walk across the road to Horsley Towers, and, in fact got safely across. He was followed by the deceased man. He was about half-way across the road, when from Horsley Station there came an Austin car, driven by the defendant, who was alone in the car. He was going towards Epsom, and struck the deceased when he was in the road. He was rolled over and over for a distance which was variously put by witnesses from 7 to 12 yards, and the offside back wheel of the car was seen to go over him. His body was then free of the car, and it was picked up. The car went on, and it was not until it had proceeded a distance of about 40 yards from the scene of the accident that it was pulled up. Every one of the six witnesses would tell them the horn was not sounded

[newspaper account for next few lines has not reproduced]

 

Sir Edward; What pace were you going past the Duke of Wellington public house?

Witness: When I could see round, I was going about 12 miles an hour. As soon as I could see the road was clear I accelerated.

Now tell us exactly what happened after that.

I went on some 25 yards or so. When I was within three or four yards of the Ford van, a man came from behind it, and started to run across the road. He did not go straight on, but stopped himself with a jerk and tried to jump back. In doing this, his feet went from under him. I am absolutely certain that my car didn't knock him down. At the time he slipped my car was on top of him.

If he had not slipped and gone forward the accident would not have taken place?

If he had gone straight across it would not have happened.

 In reply to further questions, the prisoner said as soon as he saw Mr. Allee running across the road, he threw out his clutch and put on his foot brake. It was a noisy running car, and he was perfectly certain that anyone standing on the piece of grass outside the public house must have heard it approaching.

Sir Edward: How far did the car run after the man was disentangled?

Witness: I should say that it was about 25 yards from where I struck the man to where I pulled up.

Bad Language Denied

 

Either when you first ran back, or on any subsequent occasion did you use the words “D----- the man” or “You b------ fool”?

I am perfectly definite I never used either of these expressions.

 With regard to the conversation which took place after the accident, someone said “Get a doctor,” and he said “Much better to take him straight to hospital.” He then ran back to his car, reversed it, and looking behind as he backed down the road, saw that Mr. Allee was being put into the Ford van. The injured man was lying on the straw, and was far more comfortable in the van than he could have been in the car. It was when Mr. Allee had been placed in the Ford van that he had the first conversation with Greenhough. “I am almost certain of the exact words used.” prisoner said. “Greenhough asked me for my name and address. I gave them, and he took the number of my car. Then he got into the driver's seat, and said “Are you going to the hospital behind me?” I said I would go home first and tell my people what had happened, and would come to the hospital immediately afterwards. Greenhough then said “You will follow straight behind me, or I will put a policeman in your car.” I made no answer to that and Greenhough drove off. My home was less than half a mile away. After I had been home, I went immediately to the hospital, and, finding the man was dead, I reported myself to the police, and made a statement to the Coroner's officer, which I signed. Subsequently I attended the inquest and gave evidence.

The Accused Cross-Examined

 

Mr. Whiteley then cross-examined Garlick as follows:

You agree it is the duty of motorists approaching the Duke of Wellington corner to be careful? Yes.

You say you had no speedometer: how do you know you were going at 12 miles an hour? - I didn't say exactly; I said about 12 miles an hour.

Do you ever drive this car along the road at 12 miles an hour? I said when I slowed down for the corner I was driving at about 12 miles an hour.

Why did you slow down? It is a blind corner.

You have heard each of the six witnesses say that no horn was sounded, and that they never heard the approach of the car until it was on the dead man? Yes.

If you sounded your horn when you were going at 12 miles an hour, and only accelerated after you got to the triangular piece of land, then all this evidence is untrue. When did you say you accelerated? When I could see round the Duke of Wellington.

You say you sounded your horn at the Duke of Wellington? - I first sounded it when I was about 40 yards from the Duke of Wellington.

When did you next sound it? When I first saw the two men, one of whom I hit.

You sounded it no less than three times?

[ Rest of evidence not reproduced clearly from newspaper]

 

He said he sounded his horn, and was only going 12 miles an hour, and that when he saw the road was clear accelerated, and then the deceased darted from behind a van. On the other hand, the witnesses for the prosecution said they heard no horn and that the car whizzed past like a flash. They were not only dependent upon the evidence of the men identified with the Ford van, but there were independent witnesses in Ivey, the painter, and Shepherd the ostler.

[Some of trial accounts have not reproduced. Refer to the original]

….....................................................................

The Judge's summing up

[Some missing words guessed]

 

In reviewing the evidence His Lordship said Garlick was charged with having caused the death of the deceased man by gross and culpable negligence. There was no question of his being murdered. In order to justify the present case a verdict of manslaughter the jury must be satisfied that the defendant was guilty of more than ordinary negligence, but that he was guilty of gross negligence, which means he was careless to the danger of anyone crossing the road. The prosecution had introduced  evidence of the defendant's conduct after the deceased was run over. The expressions were not strictly relevant, but if they believed he used these words, it would undoubtedly show he was a man who appeared callous and indifferent to the consequences of his own conduct. There were at least three witnesses of the prosecution who deposed to the fact that he used some such expression as “damn the man” and other expressions. The real issue between the parties was this. On the one side the prosecution said that the defendant driving at such a reckless pace that he was not able to pull up and avoid a man who was crossing the road. They said he sounded no horn, or gave warning to foot passengers who might be about , and they say the [pace] he was going at was exemplified by the fact that he dragged the body of the deceased for twelve yards, and then went on another ….... yards, altogether a distance of about …..yards from the time he struck the deceased until the car stopped. On the part of the defence, it was said that  the deceased …... suddenly, without warning darted from behind the Ford van and ran across [the road]so suddenly that however carefully the defendant was driving it was impossible to avoid the man. They say further that it was not even the defendant's {car] that knocked him down, but that the deceased slipped up and fell on the road in front of the motor, which was obliged to [run] over him. In arriving at a conclusion [it] would help them to consider the manner [in] which the defendant drove when he came to this particular point, the Duke of Wellington. He said he sounded his horn and was only going 12 miles an hour, and that he saw the road was clear and accelerated, then the deceased darted from behind the van. On the other hand, the witnesses [for] the prosecution said they heard no horn and that the car whizzed by like a [flash]. They were not only dependent upon the evidence of the man identified with the ….. van, but there were independent witnesses in Ivey, the painter, and Shepherd, the ostler.

 

The Verdict

When the jury returned into Court with their verdict, Mr. Justice Avery said he regretted to hear that one of them had been taken unwell. He understood that the jury had agreed upon a verdict before he was taken unwell.

The Foreman.- Not quite, my lord.

His Lordship- You are all agreed now I suppose.

The Foreman- Yes, my lord.

The Jury then indicated that they were agreed upon a verdict of “Not Guilty” and the accused was discharged.

This obituary entry is awaiting verification.
 
 
John William Thomas Allee
Article source:    Newbury Weekly News
Date of source:    25 November 1920
Copyright:    © Newbury Weekly News

Transcription:

 

JOHN WILLIAM ALLEE

 

IMPRESSIVE SCENES AT THE FUNERAL

THE TOWN'S SYMPATHY

 

Never has Newbury witnessed more impressive than those attending the funeral of Mr. John Allee, which took place on Friday afternoon at the Baptist Church, and the Old Cemetery, Newtown-road. The terrible tragedy of his death, the thought of the popular young fellow, struck down in the prime of his early manhood, the bereaved parents, his widowed young wife, and the fatherless children of a tender age, touched the heart of the town and raised widespread sympathy, which was as genuine as it was spontaneous. Those who witnessed the funeral procession as it came over the Bridge and made its way down Northbrook-street to the Baptist Church, will long remember the scene. In front came the old farm trolley, piled with beautiful wreaths, all of white flowers, then the glass funeral car containing the plain coffin, followed by more than a score of carriages and motors. The life of the street was stilled, business was suspended, and blinds drawn, traffic stopped automatically to allow the passage of the procession, and people stood bareheaded and in silence as it went by. Honour was paid in death to the young farmer and dealer, who was a homely figure in every day life, but who was well liked because of his straightness and many good actions. It was a tribute of which any man might be proud, and must have been a solace and consolation to the sorely stricken relatives.

 

Service at Baptist Church

 

The same characteristics marked the proceedings, and the congregation inside the church. The gathering here was most representative and catholic. Those present included the Mayor and Mayoress, and several members of the Corporation, townspeople, farmers, dealers from far and near, practically the whole of the butchers of the town and neighbourhood, a deputation of railwaymen, and also one representing the Newbury Football Club. The service was taken by the Pastor, the Rev. C.V. Pike. After the opening portion of the burial service had been impressively read, the congregation sang, to the tune of Sandon, Cardinal Newman's well known hymn, the first two lines of which are:

“Lead kindly light, amid the encircling gloom,

Lead thou me on.”

and the concluding lines:

“And with the morn those Angel faces smile,

Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile.”

Then the pastor gave an extempore prayer full of tenderness and compassion, making tears “rise in the heart, and gather to the eyes.” As the body was born from the church the organist played the Dead March in “Saul.” There were even more people                         in the streets to watch the procession from the church to the Cemetery, and here mourners had to pass through a mass of people who were gathered either side of the path. Of course there were some who had come out of curiosity, but the great3 majority were present to show their sympathy and respect. The concluding portion of the service was short and simple. The coffin was of plain oak, and the name plate was inscribed “John William Thomas Allee, Died November 16th, 1920, aged 34 years.”

 

Family Mourners

 

The mourners included the whole of the family, with the exception of the deceased's two little children, whose ages are four and six years. They included Mrs. John W.T. Allee (widow), Mr. and Mrs. W.R. Allee (father and mother), Mr. Jim Allee (brother), Mrs. Cann (sister), Mr. Arthur Allee (brother), Miss Annie Allee and Miss Jennie Allee (sisters), Mrs. Jim Allee (sister-in-law), Mr. Cann (brother-in-law), Miss Munday, Miss B. Munday and Mr. T. Munday (brother and sisters-in-law), Mr. C. Allee (uncle), Mrs. Pocock (aunt), Mr. and Mrs. Huntley, Mr. and Mrs. Pocock, Miss Dorothy Allee, Mr. Norman Allee, Mr. Albert Neal (cousins).

 

THE MARKET'S TRIBUTE

 

Mr. Allee was one of the best known and most popular figures in Newbury Cattle Market and on Thursday a tribute was paid to his memory. Before the business commenced, a bell was rung and those present stood bareheaded round the cattle ring and passed a vote of condolence with the relatives, this being moved in sympathetic terms by Mr. Harold Barton and Mr. Frank Neate. The tragedy had created a great impression, and it was quite a sight to see some many hard bitten men gathered round deeply moved by emotion.

 The family have been the recipients of a large number of letters and messages of sympathy

This obituary entry is awaiting verification.
 
 
John Allee
Article source:    Newbury Weekly News
Date of source:   
Copyright:    © Newbury Weekly News

Transcription:

 

JOHN W.T. ALLEE

£3,000 DAMAGES

AWARDED TO MRS JOHN ALLEE

FOR THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND

The tragic end of Mr. John W.T. Allee who was knocked down and killed on the main Epsom road at East Horsley, Surrey, in November in November 1920, had its sequel at the Assize Court, Reading on Thursday last, when the owner and driver

0f the car were sued for damages by the widow, Mrs. Mabel Allee, and her two children. It will be remembered that Gerald Garlick, the driver of the car, was committed on the Coroner's warrant to take his trial for manslaughter at the Surrey Assizes, where he was defended by Sir Edward Marshall Hall, and acquitted. The present action was heard by Mr. Justice Darling sitting without a jury, and the defendants were Mr. Thomas Charles Garlick, of Rowbarns Manor, East Horsley, the owner of the car, and his son Mr. Gerald Garlick, who had driven him to the station and was returning home when the fatality occurred. The Judge said he was satisfied that there had been negligence on the part of the driver, and awarded £3,000 damages, £1,000 to Mrs Allee and £1,000 for each of child, the latter amounts to be held in trust for them by the Public Trustees.

 

Mr. Arthur Powell, K.C., and Mr. h. McKenna, instructed by Messrs Charles Lucas and Marshall, solicitors, of Newbury were for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Vachell, K.C., and Mr. Shakespear, for the defendants.

Mr. Powell, K.C., States Plaintiff's Case

Mr. Arthur Powell, K.C., in opening the case for the plaintiff, said the action was for damages under the Fatal Accidents Art, which used to be called Lord Campbell's Act. The deceased was a man of about 34 years of age, and his father had for a considerable time been a brick maker, cartage contractor, sand and gravel proprietor and cattle dealer of Newbury. The son had sometime ago been engaged by Sir John Jackson to go out to Mesopotamia as a manger at £650 a year. He was there some time, but returned home after contracting typhoid fever. In 1915 the father gave over to him the business at Newbury, and went to live at Liphook. The son carried on the business and built himself a house. He was married and had two children, a little girl aged six named, and William John aged four years. He had large dealings in cattle, and at the time of his death was a man in the prime of life and was doing very well. He had largely increased the businesses which he had taken over from his father, and counsel said he was instructed that the net result of the business he was doing was something like £1,000 a year to the son.

The Judge; This was from the business which the deceased managed?

Mr. Powell: No; the son took over the business as his own, and took the whole of the profits and these were £1,000 a year.

Counsel went on to say that he had considerable difficulty in proving this part of the case as no proper accounts were kept.

The Judge on Income Tax Returns

The Judge: What about the income tax return?

Mr. Thomas: That was returned at £400 a year, but your Lordship's experience will tell you that this may not have been an excessive return. This was often the case with a vast number of people.

The Judge: It would not be a bad thing if people could only recover on the basis of their income tax return. Perhaps it would make them more honest.

Mr. Powell said he was not going to dissent from that as a general principle. His own view was that it should be a very good thing if every one who carried on business was made to keep books and show the exact amount of their profits. He had to face all that, and did so from the outset, but he would be able to show by the deceased's bank book that from January 1st, 1920 to the time of his death in November of that year, his turnover had been £60,000. It was difficult to say what amount of that was profit, but he believed there would have been rather more than £400 a year out of the sandpits alone. The wife was allowed the proceeds of the of the milk for her house keeping, and this was never less than £5 a week, and sometimes amounted to £12. With a denial of liability the defendant had paid into the Court £500.

The Judge: I have not heard that. I am as ignorant as a jury would be.

Mr. Powell went on to say that obviously the pecuniary loss was all that could be recovered. It was clearly apparent that the prospective pecuniary loss sustained by the widow and the two children by the removal of the breadwinner at so early an age must be very considerable. Though it might be truly said that a widow of that age might marry again, he would point out that nowadays a man who wanted to marry had a very much larger field of selection because there were so many more women than men. All these things had to be considered when arriving at the damage sustained. Counsel then proceeded to call evidence in support of his case. The first witnesses dealt with the accident.

[Evidence given by several witnesses omitted.]

 

The Deceased's Income

William Robert Allee, father of the deceased, said he made the business at Newbury. When his son returned from Mesopotamia and married, witness went to Liphook to live, and his son had carried on the business for himself since 1915. Asked by Counsel if he had done well out of his business, Mr. Allee said he had been in business for thirty years, and was in a better position than when he started, whilst in addition he had brought up a family. Whilst in Newbury he had a cartage business, two brick yards, sand and gravel pits, and also a small dairy business. He said the milk business was worth £8, £10 or £12 a week. The brickyards and sandpits were also profitable. When he went to Liphook his son took over affairs at Newbury. He kept eight horses on, had six drivers, and five or six other men at work in the gravel and sand pits. According to his bank pass book he had a £60,000 turnover, and the greater proportion of that was in regard to cattle dealing.

Mr.Powell: Did your son do more or less than you did? Witness: He could not do so much in the brickyard, but he did very much more in cattle dealing.

An Overdraft at the Bank

Mr. Vachell cross-examined as follows:-

You say his pass book showed a turnover of £600,000 but that does not show that the business was profitable?

Mr. Allee: I know his dealings were profitable.

How do you make this out when his bank book shows that he was overdrawn to the extent of £900? - That can be explained.

Mr. Allee said that there was a cheque returned for £400,which was afterwards paid in.

Mr. Vachell: But that leaves an overdraft of £500. On the first of January he started with a credit balance of £509, and including this the total amount paid in up to the time of his death was £60,308, whereas he had drawn out £61,312, which shows an overdraft of £913.

That £913 is accounted for.

Do you agree with me that the figures, subject to any explanation are correct?

I don't dispute your figures, but if my son had lived he would have had an extra £3,000in the bank without paying out any cheque, for stock he was selling.

But as a matter of fact the bank shows an overdraft of £013?

That is nothing to a man in business; plenty of people get a bigger one than that.

[There follows further exchanges, mainly the Judge examining Mr. Garlick]

 

Speech for the Defence

 

Mr. Vachell in his speech for the defence said that the evidence showed that even if there was a certain amount of negligence on the part of Garlick- which he did not admit- there was an equal amount of negligence on the part of the deceased man himself. It was a question of whose evidence was to be relied upon, and he submitted that Ivy's evidence was somewhat tainted because he was rather annoyed with Mr. Garlick for driving too close to him on the previous day. It took away his character of being an independent witness. There was certain negligence on the part of the deceased, because before you cross the road you should certainly look to see what was coming.

His Lordship intimated to Mr. Powell that he need not trouble to address him on the question of negligence. Any remarks he wished to make should be confined to the matter of damages.

Substantial Damages Asked For

Mr. Powell admitted that the evidence on this point was not as satisfactory as would have been the case if proper books had been kept, but it was parent that that Mr. Allee had been carrying on a prosperous business since 1915, and that his turnover in …..? months was something like £60,000. The return for income tax purposes was £400 and he thought they might take it that his income was appreciably more than that. He was a young man, 34 years of age, and had left this widow and two little children. He asked his Lordship to say that this was a case where a substantial sum should be awarded for their benefit.

 

Mr. Justice Darling on Motorists

 

Mr. Justice Darling, in giving judgment said that this was a case brought to recover damages for negligence to which the plaintiff's husband, Mr. Allee was killed, and she was left a widow with two small children, a girl aged six and a boy aged four. He had come to the conclusion upon the evidence which had been given, that negligence had been proved against Mr. Garlick, who was driving the car. He thought he came round the corner a great deal too fast. The most satisfactory evidence in the case was given by Ivy, the painter, who was a perfectly independent witness, not being acquainted with either of the parties. He did not think that contributory negligence on the part of Mr. Allee was proved. People had a perfect right to cross the road, and motorists were not entitled to assume as they came round a corner that the road was clear, or to expect any people on the road to run like hares to get out of the way. It was plain that the deceased did not see the car until it was on him, and then he threw up his arms and called to his father. He was satisfied that no proper warning was given, that the pace was too great, and that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the car. That being so there must be judgment for the plaintiff for a sum of money which he award. It was a very difficult thing to say what would have been the future position of Mrs. Allee and her children if this young man had lived. He was an industrious man that was perfectly plain. He had capital, he understood his business and he had prospered in it. He had not kept ………? but he had kept his family, and had built a house, and was evidently doing quite well. He returned his accounts at £400 a year. His Lordship said he was not going to assume it was more. He was a man who they might very well expect to get on in the world,, as his father had done. He had come to the conclusion that the loss to these people should be assessed at £3,000. he would therefore give judgment for the plaintiff for that amount, the money to be divided as follows: £1,000 for the widow and £1,000 for each of the children. The money for the children was to be paid to the Public Trustee to be used for their benefit, according to directions which might be given by the Court upon application from time to time. There would be judgment accordingly with costs,.

Newbury Weekly News   date not recorded but was probably a year after his death

 
 
 
 
This obituary entry is awaiting verification.
 
 
John William Thomas Allee
Article source:    Newbury Weekly News
Date of source:    18 November 1920
Copyright:    © Newbury Weekly News

Transcription:

 

JOHN WILLIAM THOMAS ALLEE

INQUEST LAST NIGHT

 

VERDICT OF MANSLAUGHTER

 

The inquest into the sad occurrence took place at Guildford last (Wednesday) evening before the Coroner, Major Smallpiece, and a jury. The proceedings started at 5.30 p.m. And did not conclude until after eight. After a short retirement it was announced the jury were unanimously agreed upon upon a verdict of manslaughter against Gerald Garlick, the driver of the car, who is of independent means, and lives at East Horsley.

 

Mr. Allee's Ford van was standing by the grass on the near side of the road, outside the Duke of Wellington public house at Horsley. Opposite that is a piece of grass, and about 30 or 40 yards up the road is a dangerous corner. The view is very restricted in both directions, and all the witnesses stated that they heard no horn sounded, and did not hear or see the car until it was practically on the deceased.

 

The first witness was the father of the deceased, William Robert Allee, of Liphook. He said that he went on Tuesday morning with his son and other men to purchase cattle at Horsley Towers. They stopped on the main road and got out. He heard his son shout “Look out, father,” and almost before the words were out of his mouth a car whizzed by, and he saw that his son was underneath a car some distance down the road. Speaking under great emotion, Mr. Allee added “My boy saved my life, there is no doubt about that.” He heard Mr. Garlick say to the driver of his (witness's) car, “Oh no, I am not going now, you ------- fool. I will go presently.” This statement was in reference to an allegation that Garlick refused to take the injured man to the hospital.

 

Arthur Greenough, motor driver for Mr. Allee, said that the off-side front wheel of the car rolled the deceased over and over before the off hind wheel passed over him. The car pulled up 42 strides further up the road from the scene of the accident. He asked the driver if he was going to Guildford. He replied, “You b------- fool, I am going home, and I am going to Guildford presently.” Witness asked him if he would take the injured man to the hospital, and he asked if he was injured much.

 

Walter Ivey, a painter, who was an eye witness of the accident, said he saw the deceased start to cross the road towards the entrance to the estate just as a motor car came flying past. The deceased, seeing the car close upon him, sprang round, but too late. He corroborated the statement about the car pulling up about 40 yards away. It was travelling very fast.

 

William Shepherd, ostler at the public house opposite where the accident happened, gave similar evidence. He said the deceased took two steps into the road when the car struck him.

 

Edward Poulter and Arthur George Searle also gave similar evidence, and the latter estimated the speed of the  car at from 25 to 30 miles an hour.

 

Garlick, who was legally represented, volunteered to give evidence. He said he was driving a 15 h,p, Austin, and estimated his speed through the village at 20 miles an hour. He slowed down round the corner. Having rounded it, he saw two or three men standing in the road, but as the road was clear, and as he could pass them, he accelerated. When he was within four yards of the men, the deceased, instead of going straight across, jumped back, and in doing so slipped. He could not possibly avoid him. He thought he stopped 25 yards from the accident. He ran back, and then went back to fetch his car to take Mr. Allee to hospital, but in the meantime he had been placed in the motor-van.

 

Answering the Coroner, he denied that he used the expressions attributed to him, and said that he himself suggested taking Mr. Allee in his car to hospital. With regard to his speed, he was getting up to about 20 miles an hour when the accident happened.

 

Medical evidence of extensive internal injuries was given, and the doctor stated that the base of the skull was also fractured.

 

The Coroner directed the jury on the law of manslaughter, saying that the jury on the law of manslaughter, saying the only illegal act which Garlick could have committed was an infringement of the speed limit, and he thought that the fact that the car travelled 42 yards with the brakes on seemed to show that the car was travelling at an excessive speed.

 

The jury then retired to consider their verdict, and, upon coming back, returned the verdict as above stated.

 

After the inquest, Garlick was arrested, but was afterwards liberated on bail. He will be brought before the Guildford County Bench on Friday morning.

 

Newbury Weekly News 18 November 1920 (?)

 

This obituary entry is awaiting verification.
 
 

Pictures and photographs

Click to enlarge
John William Thomas Allee
Grave in Newtown Road Cemetery, Newbury
©FNRC
John William Thomas Allee

 



Biographies & History



Related Links

These links go to other websites with information that is relevant to this person.
Please note that FNRC is not responsible for external web site content.

   
   
   

 

 

*The FNRC believe that the certificates published on this page have been added in compliance with the rules laid down by the General Register Office (GRO).Click here for more information.
If you believe that we may have inadvertently breached the privacy of a living person by publishing any document, pleasecontact usso we can immediately remove the certificate and investigate further.
Thank you
FNRC.

Website designed and maintained by Paul Thompson on behalf of the Friends of Newtown Road Cemetery.

Administrator Login