Over £6,890 Earned Illegally: Sheep Diverted from Rail
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
" DELIBERATE diversion ' of sheep transport from rail to road was alleged by Mr. J. L. R. Croft, objecting on behalf of British Railways to an application by a newcomer to the Northern Licensing Authority at Carlisle last week.
Mr. I A. T. Hanlon rejected the application for a B licence by Mr. Thomas David Smith, Southwaite Road, Low Hesket, Carlisle, who had been employed with his vehicle by Messrs. Lancaster and McCrone, Carlisle live stock dealers. Applicant wished to carry sheep as required for Messrs. Lancaster and McCrone, also for an agent of that firm in Scotland, and lime in bulk for a local quarry and a lime merchant. Letters in support of the application were submitted.
C-Hiring Margin Mr. Smith, who was represented by Mr. B. G. Montgomery, said that he had operated his Albion for the past 18 months under a C-hiring margin taken out by Messrs. Lancaster and McCrone. The work involved haulage of sheep between the firm's Carlisle Wragmire Moss depot on the A6 main road and Carlisle station. He wished to carry sheep from Carlisle into Scotland for a Mr. McCallum, of Dingwall, when travelling empty to collect loads for Messrs. Lancaster and McCrone, and to carry lime during the quiet periods for livestock work.
He had 20 years' experience of the haulage industry as a former driver for a Carlisle firm, a director of a concern of agricultural contractors and now a driver with Messrs. Lancaster and McCrone. He produced figures showing' a net profit for the vehicle of £2,262 last year and gross takings to April this year of £1,805.
Answering Mr. Croft, he agreed that the vehicle yielded £5,088 in gross takings in the year from Messrs. Lancaster and McCrone, Secretary's Evidence Mr. N. L. Beattie, secretaryaccountant of Messrs. Lancaster and McCrone, said that his firm had one vehicle of their own and Mr. Smith had been paid £4004500 a month for work with his lorry and £10 a week as driver.
Mr. Croft referred to drops in sheep carried from Carlisle station from 37,630 in 1954 to 8,563 in 1955. Witness said he did not think his firm had had a decline in business over that period.
Mr. Croft: "Then livestock is being diverted from rail to road by Messrs. Lancaster and McCrone as a deliberate and set policy?"
Witness: "We run our business on economic lines, and cost is a chief factor determining road or rail transport."
Mr. Croft: "But it is obvious that there has been enormous abstraction of sheep by rail in 1955 and, if Mr. Smith was paid £5,000 last year by your firm, he must have carried far in excess of the 8,000 sheep sent from Carlisle station?"
Mr. Beattie: "It would appear so."
Witness went on to explain that his firm used road transport chiefly because they did much business with the Co-operative Wholesale Society, most of whose orders came from London.
Mr. Hanlon: I seem to remember a case in this court in which I think the Co-operative Society was said to have made orders for cattle about 4 p.m. or 5 p.m. in the afternoon for delivery at Derby early next morning. That still happens?" The witness agreed.
"It seems that what I said has not filtered through to those responsible for buying for the Co-operatives," continued Mr. Hanlon. "I stated that it was not a reasonable way to order transport for cattle at tea-time one day for delivery at once if not before.
"The result seems to be that the Co-operative Society are setting conditions for their agents who buy meat for them to force the traffic off the rail and on to the roads. I suppose the time will come when there will be so muchlraffic on the roads that it won't be able to move at all and something will have to be done about getting it back on to the rail again!
Reasonable Arrangements' "I don't think this is evidence of reasonable demand of customers. I hope you will convey to your firm what I say and that they will try to have some reasonable arrangements made about conveying the information to those who are putting in the orders," he added.
Mr. Croft submitted that there was no evidence, apart from the letters, in connection with the requirements for transport of lime, and of sheep foianyone other than Messrs. Lancaster and McCrone. It was also clear from the evidence that Mr. Smith himself, as the user, and not Messrs Lancaster and McCrone, should have held the C licence in respect of applicant's vehicle.
Mr. Montgomery admitted that the operation of the vehicle had been "tainted with illegality," and said that the application was to regularize the position.
Mr, Hanlon: "I am afraid I must find as a fact on the evidence that this work has been illegal from the day the applicant started doing it with his own vehicle. In that time, he has earned more than £6,890 and the whole of that work has been done illegally under this licence.
"Apart from that, it is an application from a newcomer who must prove not only that there are people ready to employ him, hut that the work cannot be done by existing hauliers, and there is no such evidence before me."