Poulter case continues
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• At the end of the third day in the hearing of the application before the Metropolitan LA, Mr. D. I. R. Muir. by Chesford Haulage Ltd. of London El to take over licences previously held by Charles Poulter Ltd., also of London El , the case was again adjourned. It will be resumed today.
The second day's hearing was reported in CM last week, the first day having been heard earlier (CM September 19), Chesford is seeking licences for 78 vehicles on A licence conditioned "general goods, Great Britain" and 11 on B licence conditioned "general goods within 30 miles of base".
On the third day (October 2), the cross-examination by Mr. R. M. Yorke, for the National Freight Corporation (British Road Services Ltd.), of Mr. Joseph Young, who would be principal shareholder in Chesford if the take-over were completed, was interrupted to hear evidence from a chartered accountant, Mr. Soloman Kriteman,
Mr. Kriteman told the LA that he audited the accounts of a number of haulage companies, among them the Davis Group companies. He had known Mr. Young about 15 years, from the time when he audited the accounts of J. O'Connor Haulage Ltd., a company of which Mr. Young had been a minority shareholder until it was sold to a Davis Group company (C. Bristow Ltd.) in 1963. He had held, as a nominee, Mr. Young's 250 shares in O'Connor.
There was no control connection between the Davis Group and J. O'Connor, said Mr. Kriteman; but it did share a yard with one of the Davis Group companies and both sub-contracted to and hired from Davis Group companies.
If this was so, asked Mr. Yorke (as he had earlier of Mr. Young), why did Mr. Kriteman describe J. O'Connor as part of the Davis Group when giving evidence to the President of the Transport Tribunal in 1955?
"Rightly or wrongly," replied Mr. Kriteman "at the time of the Tribunal hearing in 1955, I regarded O'Connor as part of the Davis Group.. In my office they were treated as a member of the Group." There was never a Davis director on J. O'Connor, unlike the other Group companies, said Mr. Kriteman.
He did not think that the sale figure of f119,500 first negotiated between Chesford and Poutler for the Poulter fleet was a low
figure. He agreed that the vehicles alone stood at about £140,000 in the accounts for the previous year and that £123,000 had been spent on new vehicles that same year. He knew that a second. agreement had subsequently been reached for a lower figure, repayable over a 10-year period.
He agreed that a receiver had been appointed for all the Davis companies except Poulters.
The O'Connor company became dormant in 1963, after the sale of its assets. He could not explain, said Mr. Kriteman, how in that case the name of the company appeared in a document drawn up between the Anglo-Israel Bank and the Davis Group where all Davis companies cross-guaranteed each other's liabilities to the bank. He thought that he may have signed the document on behalf of O'Connor Haulage in ignorance of the true position. The bank's document was signed in October 1964, but it was not until 1965 that he was instructed to audit and wind up the accounts of O'Connor.
He agreed with Mr. Yorke that no businessman, properly advised, would do what the directors of .1: O'Connor seemed to have done. Mr. Kriteman explained that he was not asked to advise, however.