1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154 
Bid to Transfer. Vehicle Ownership .Y OU have placed me in a frightful
Page 73
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
1 difficulty. I have realized your difficulty and there may be some merit in your application, and on previous Occasions I have assisted you, yet you will persist in coming here without representation. If you had somebody with experience in these matters to assist you, your case might have been presented in a better manner and you would stand a far better chance."
This comment was made by Mr. W. Chamberlain, North-Western Licensing Authority, on an application by Mr. F. Wharmby, Duke Street, Liverpool, for an A licence for an existing vehicle.
Mr. Ian Macaulay, for the Globe Parcel Delivery Co.., inquired about a new company, the Merseyside Parcel Delivery Co., Ltd., in which the applicant had an -onterest. Mr. Wharmby replied that, if he received a licence, the vehicle would probably be hired out to the company, in which the ownership would he vested. He held a thirdshare vote in the concern.
Mr. Chamberlain pointed out that he could not grant a licence in Mr. Wharmby's name, in those circumstances, because the vehicle could not be owned by the company and run under a licence issued to the applicant.
Replying to Mr. Shepherd, for Karrier's Parcel Delivery, Ltd., Mr. Wharmby said that, when he sold his
previous business to a Mr. Skinner, he did not relinquish an interest in it, as a condition of the transfer was that he was to receive 6 per cent, of the profits in perpetuity.
Mr. Macaulay whilst sympathizing with the applicant, asked the chairman to consider whether Mr. Whannby was really carrying on the business which he operated as the National Parcel Delivery Co., because it appeared that he was out of business from August,
1934, until March, 1935. It seemed that the business was definitely transferred to a Mr. Skinner in August, 1934, and that Mr. Wham:thy re-acquired it only when Mr. Skinner did not pay him the.instalments of his money.
Mr. Macaulay pointed out that Mr. Skinner's application for a B licence for general goods within a 50-mile radius was refused.
Counsel contended that Mr. Wharmby was in the position of a newcomer and that he had not satisfied the second part of the Enston onus.
Mr. Wharnaby maintained that his business had never been sold outright to Mr. Skinner. He had continued a small bilsiness since that date and was still doing so, even to the extent of losing money, simply because he did not want it to be said that the business was not continuous.
Decision was reserved.