were Messrs. C. Shipley (Vice-Chairman), F. Robotham, R. Atkinson, F. Coombes, W. Clarken, D. Brodie, W. Clarke, W. Chapman, W. Stevenson, and G. Wride, with Messrs. M. J. Dickinson and R. T. Hatton, Trustees.
But it was not all jubilation that year. There were many fatal accidents to members, and the Secretary and four organisers were all busy running about to inquests and inquiries. The year 1906 had manifested weaknesses in the vacuum brake, and the Society had vigorously protested against the supine and, indeed, brutal custom of Local Government Board Inspectors to blame drivers for accidents they could not help. Grantham and Salisbury were painful examples, but later the facts were evidently realised privately, although the public had been prejudiced, for improvements were made to the vacuum. The facts are glaring now, for we got no more disasters of the same type. However, by 1909, attention was focussed on another type of accident, that to heavy, long trains, which the brake power could not hold. Engines were wilfully overloaded, and strong representations were made to Mr. G. R. Askwith at the Board of Trade on the matter.
There came to a head also, in the year 1909, a libel action which the Committee felt obliged to enter against Mr. T. T. Millman, in consequence of certain statements and circulars issued in respect to the Society. Towards the close of 1903, Mr. Millman became a member of the office staff, but three years later he assaulted the General Secretary, with whom he had never been very happy. For that offence he was instantly dismissed by the Executive, and then he seems to have had the encouragement of the A.S.R.S. to attack the Society. The action entered by Geo. Moore, M. J. Dickinson, and others of the Executive against Mr. Millman was heard in the King's Bench Division, November 2nd to 8th, 1909, by Mr. Justice Grantham and a special jury. They found that the charge made by the defendant was not true, that the circular issued was a libel, and that it was issued with malice, not with any sense of duty, but with a direct motive to injure the other Society. Judgment was therefore returned against Millman for £1,000 and costs.
