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 
TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL IN LONDON
Page 15
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Application 'Very Near to Fraud'
QUGGESTIONS that the actions of an
appellant making an application before the North Western deputy Licensing Authority came "very near to fraud " were made by counsel for British Road Services who, with BritishRailways, were respondents to an appeal by Mrs. Margaret Kearn (trading as Hat and Garment Northern Deliveries) to the Tribunal against the refusal of the Authority to grant a two-vehicle B licence to carry hats and garments between Manchester and Glasgow and return. The Tribunal allowed B.R.S. to introduce additional evidence and, after arguments, adjourned its judgment. Mr. E. Taylor, for the appellant, said that the appellant's husband, Mr. J. Kearn, a depot manager, of W. G. Mumford Express Services Ltd., of Dunstable, which operates services between London and Manchester and Leeds, had been approached by Mumford's customers to extend facilities to Glasgow, and had applied for a licence for his wife, supported by some 30 customers of Mumford. Mumford, Mr. Taylor continued, had not objected and had " rather given its blessing" to the application. Apparently it was not willing to extend its existing services beyond Manchester and Leeds.
Evidence given by Mumford customers was that they required a speedy trunk service between the Manchester' area and Glasgow. and the applicant's husband was experienced in the type of operation required, because of his employment with Mumford.
After the luncheon adjournment Mr. R. M. Yorke, for B.R.S., asked leave to call further evidence: He said there were sitting in court two directors of Mumford, one of wham, if allowed to • give evidence, would say that none of the statements made by Mr. Kearn at the public inquiry was true. The evidence would be that Mumford did not know that the application was going to be made until after it had been made, and did not know it was going to he heard in court until told by one of the firm's trunk drivers. It was only after seeing the notice of appeal in a transport newspaper that Mumford knew the appeal was being heard and had come along to the court. It would seem, continued Mr. Yorke, that the appellant's husband had refused to entertain inquiries made to Mumford for a service to Glasgow in order to put his wife's application into a stronger and better position. After the president had indicated that the Tribunal would allow the additional evidence, Mr, p. A. Mumford said, in evidence, that he had been assured by Mr. Kearn that the application would in no way be detrimental to his company. He did not know beforehand that five witnesses were going to give evidence, and that there were supporting letters from 25 people—all customers of Mumford. With knowledge of such a demand, it would have been his firm's policy to have applied for licences, and certainly, had he known what he now knew, the application would have been opposed.
Mr. A. J. S. Wrottesley, for the Railways Board, submitted that it was an applicant's duty not only to tell the truth about his own affairs, but also about his relations with his employer.If the Tribunal had felt that that standard had not been maintained by the appellant, then all Mr. Kearn's statements were subject to considerable scrutiny.
After Mr. Yorke had submitted it was clear that Mr. Kearn had misled his employers. the Tribunal announced that It would deliver a written judgment later.
Appeal Rejected THE Transport Tribunal, refusing an appeal by Popinthewell Traders Ltd., of Marylebone, London. drew attention to the fact that the appellant had "completely misconceived the legal position" regarding the use of a C licence. In London, on Tuesday, Popinthewell was appealing against the refusal of the Metropolitan deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. C J. Macdonald, to grant a new B licence for two vehicles (one of which was operating under a C licence granted in respect of wholesale grocery transport) to carry luggage, handbags, suitcases, etc., between Marylebone and London Docks within a radius of 50 miles. Opposing were British Railways, B.R.S., F, V. Carroll arid Co. Ltd., and Burrows and Dunn Ltd. Mr. R. Popinthewell told the Tribunal that the licence was required solely to be used in connection with his company's work as shipping arid forwarding agents, which consisted of taking the effects of returning coloured immigrant families to the docks. It often happened that he was asked by the people living in the same houses as :those with whom his company held a contract, to convey odd suitcases and effects to the same quay or dock.
For the Railways Board, Mr. A. J. S. Wrottesley submitted that the case was
complicated because the appellant had told the Authority that it wanted to carry goods to airports—a fact not mentioned in the published application. Further, it had been extraordinarily difficult to ascertain whether the vehicle in possession had been used to carry goods irregularly or otherwise, which was another reason why the appeal should not be looked upon with favour. Mr. R. M. Yorke, for B.R.S., said that Popinthewell had refused to produce records to the Authority, although he had them with him in court. Giving judgment, Mr. 0. D. Squibb, the president, said it appeared that the appellant had been carrying luggage for people with whom it had entered into contract for the carriage of the owners' baggage. Mr. Popinthewell had entirely misconceived the legal position because he would require a licence to carry other people's baggage, even though he held a contract. There was insufficient evidence and the deputy Authority had come to a correct decision. An application, made on behalf of F. V. Carroll and Co. for costs against Popinthewell Traders Ltd., because its appeal was both frivolous and vexatious, was refused by the Tribunal.
24-vehicle Switch Appeal AN appeal by • the British Railways Board and B.R.S. against the granting of a 24 vehicle A licence by the N.W. deputy Licensing Authority to P. Jeory and Son—which was commenced on Tuesday—was, at the time of going to press, still being heard by the Tribunal.
Objectors' Representative Challenged THE appearance of Mr. J. Booth as representative of the private objectors was challenged at a public inquiry before Mr. J. Gazdar, deputizing for the North Western Licensing Authority, at Manchester on Wednesday. The application was one in which R. Walker (Haulage) Ltd., Woodley, was asking to vary its A licence by deleting one articulated lowloader trailer of 4+ tons and adding a similar trailer of 7+ tons (the same trailer reweighed). Mr. A. Balne, for the applicant, observed that Mr. Booth had on a previous occasion conducted a case 3n behalf of Walkers, a fact which might place him in an unusual position in objecting to the current application. In view of the knowledge which he had of the company its present case might he prejudiced. Mr. Booth asked that it should he placed on record that he had approached the Licensing Authority about his own position. Mr. Gazdar agreed with Mr. Balne and, following a discussion, adjourned the application until June 28.