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
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168 
Difficulty
Page 115
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
railways) said the application was made to rectify the position and to enable the applicants to do what they did in the basic year. The Authority was being asked to legalize what had actually been done for the past year.
The evidence produced was insufficient to justify an addition to the licence, said Mr. Shepherd. These applicants had taken it into their hands to add traffic to their business.
In the basic year the applicants had qualified for that for which they now asked, said Mr. Lustgarten. It was wrong to say they had no licence for anything except coal, bricks and timber. From the commencement " bricks and timber principally" had been mentioned. Until the last previous hearing the word " principally " was on the licence and it followed that certain other commodities could be carried.
Decision was reserved, the Deputy Licensing Authority asking for the production of various figures in relation to the traffics of the applicants and the Canal Carriers.