Contested Objections Heard
Page 44
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WHEN the application of Messrs. W Bullock and Jackson for variation of the conditions of their B licence came before Sir William Hart, NorthWestern Deputy Licensing Authority, on Monday, decision was reserved pending examination of the applicants' books, to ascertain that the carriers for whom it was desired to work were amongst the customers during the basic year. The application was for a variation of conditions to permit the carrying of goods for any distance for various traders and for eight other haulage contractors, and Monday's was the third hearing.
Objections came from the London, Midland and Scottish and London and North-Eastern Railways, and Garlick, Burrell and Edwards, Ltd. At the first bearing Mr. H. Backhouse, jour., for the applicants, submitted that, in view of Section 11 (3) of the 1933 Act, the objections were not admissible, because the application did not seek to vary or extend the district already specified.
At the second hearing, Mr. Backhouse sought to establish, alternatively, that if the Authority had discretion to hear objections to an application other than an application described in Section 11 (3), he should not permit objectors to crass-examine the applicants.
On behalf ot the railways, Mr. Gilbert Woodward contended that the application was one seeking to vary or extend. the district specified in the licence, within the meaning of Section 11 (3), and, therefore, the Authority was boundby the terms of Section
11 (2) to _take into consideration any objection lodged in pursuance of that sub-section. Further, the Authority was not precluded from considering any objection, whether or not relating to an application under Section 11 (3).
At the opening of Monday's inquiry, Sir William Hart said; on the question of the discretion of the Authority to hear objections, he noted that Section 11 (3) indicated applications that the Authority must publish_ He found nothing in the Act to prohibit the publication of such other applications as the Authority might think desirable. Section 11 (2) set out the objections which the Authority was bound to take into consideration, but there was nothing, in his opinion, to disentitle him from taking into consideration other objections that might be made. In this case, the Authority had published notice of the application.
Regarding the permitting of objectors to cross-examine applicants, the conduct of any inquiry was fully within the discretion of the Authority. It was usual to permit cross-examination of both applicants and objectors, but there might, in certain cases, be reasons why the Authority should not permit an applicant to be examined by an objector. In this case, he thought it to be in the public interest to allow cross-examination of the applicants.
Mr. John Jackson, a partner, said in evidence that the present application was 'made because he found that the conditions previously 'granted "did not cover his activities during the basic year. He agreed to produce books to prove those activities.