Authority Objects to Application
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Scottish Deputy Licensing Authority stated last week that he had strong objections to an application submitted to him for the renewal of three licences by the South Wynd Garage Co., Colinsburgh.
After Mr. M. B. Danskin, Straithkinness, had said in evidence that he was a partner in the concern, the Authority pointed out that the applic,ation had been made by James Watson, trading as the South Wynd Garage Co. The court should have the full names of the partnership. • He said that Watson was not registered as the owner. All the previous applications had been made in Watson's name and licences issued accordingly. It had been found by the Authority's officers that the owner of the business was Mrs. Grace Danskin. The company started in March, 1951.
Watson had laid himself open to be dealt with under the Road Traffic Act for making a false statement. and was liable to a fine not exceeding £50, or imprisonment not exceeding six months. or both. The licences were obtained by false representation by Watson and they could not be renewed. All the vehicles were operating illegally and the Authority could not deal with the application.
The Authority said that only Mrs. Danskin could make applications. There had been applications in 1950, although the concern was not registered until 1951.
Mr. R. C. B. Currie. for the applicant. said that it had been wrong not to have stated that Mr. Danskin and Mr. Watson were partners. Mr. Watson was, however, the proprietor and traded as the South Wynd Garage Co.
The Authority advised that Watson submit short-term applications. The partners could then enter into an agreement to transfer the business from Mr. Watson to Mvs. Danskin.
£20 FINE FOR ADVERTISING
r1A COMPANY of advertising contractors were fined £20 at Liverpool for parking a lorry bearing advertisement boards in a car park in the city centre for 7i hours. The corporation, which brought the summons, contended that the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations, 1948, had been contravened. These regulations exempted vehicles which were normally employed on the roads, but Mr. R. H. Nicholson, for the corporation, submitted that the lorry was a mobile advertising station.
Mr. W. T. D. Hodgson, defending, stated that the lorry was used for maintaining permanent advertising sites. The regulations, he said, were aimed against permanent advertising, not against a lorry which was stationary for 7-1 hours, The magistrate said that he was satisfied that the vehicle had been adapted or designed for the main purpose of displaying advertisements and that there had been a breach of the regulations.
A30