Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Illegal Running Since 1937 Alleged

16th May 1947, Page 49
16th May 1947
Page 49
Page 49, 16th May 1947 — Illegal Running Since 1937 Alleged
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Variety of -Interesting Questions Raised in Three Appeals Heard Last Week. One Case Sent Back for Rehearing BY a High Court decision of 1937 in the case of Spittle and Thames Grit and Aggregates, Ltd., work such as that done by George Wimpey and Co., Ltd., could not be undertaken by Clicence vehicles, said Mr. Gilbert Woodward, before the Appeal Tribunal last week. The Wimpey concern had, he said, ignored this ruling and had continued to operate its vehicles under C licences instead of B licences.

Mr. Woodward appeared for 15 haulage companies which appealed against the Metropolitan Deputy Licensing Authority's grant of a B licence to the Wimpey company to use 28 vehicles to carry debris from demolition sites where the concern was engaged as a contractor, and a shortterm B licence for sixteen vehicles for hire work.

Legalizing the Position Now, argued counsel, the company was only setting out to legalize its position. It was attempting to encroach on the fields of the professional hauliers, but had not even provided any evidence of need or produced figures to show pre-was tonnage or the amount of work carried out by sub-contractors.

Mr. David Karmel, for the respondent, refuted 'Mr. VVoodward's suggestion that the Wimpey concern should be treated as a newcomer. The haulage work to be done by the company was essentially concerned with civil engineering. If the company did not handle a works contract, the haulage would not exist. It would be fantastic, said Mr. Karmel, if a concern such as George Wimpey and Co., Ltd., when engaged on a contract, had to hire vehicles while its own lorries stood idle.

The Tribunal's decision was reserved.

The question of whether special vehicles should be set aside for the carrying of attested cattle, as apart from ordinary stock, was raised in the appeal of the Southern Railway against the grant of a B licence for a 30-cwt. vehicle by the South-Eastern Licensing Authority to Miss E. M. C. Townshend.

• She was perrffitted to carry cattle within a radius of 70 miles of her farm at Etchingham, Sussex.

Mr. G. R. F. Morris, for the respondent, stated that as Miss Townshend was a breeder of selected T.T. cattle, she would naturally reserve her truck to the carriage only of attested stock for the protection of her own animals. She had received many letters from ether breeders in her area requesting the use of her vehicle.

Ministry Witness

As the Tribunal attached importance to this matter, a witness from the Ministry of Agriculture was called. Mr. H. C. Gregory, divisional veterinary inspector, appeared after a short adjournment and testified that the regulations on disinfection of trucks were carried out reasonably well.

Questioned by Mr. Morris as to the desirability of having vehicles solely for the carriage of attested animals, witness replied: "If I were an owner and there were two classes of vehicle, I

would have the one kept for certified cattle."

For the S.R., Mr. David Karmel declared that the respondent had failed to show that existing facilities were inadequate atd there was no evidence to show that cattle had been infected because of having been carried in ordinary 'trucks. If the appeal failed, it would lead to the situation that only owners of attested cattle would be allowed to carry such stock.

Decision was reserved.

A protest against the manner in which an inquiry was conducted by the West Midland Deputy Licensing Authority was made by Mr. Karmel in an appeal by three hauliers against a grant of a B licence to Mr. G. Fuller, Ludlow.

"Snap" Decision

The Deputy Licensing Authority, said Mr. Karmel, having heard the testimony of witnesses for the applicant and the cross-examination by Mr. I. Foley Egginton for the objectors, informed the court that he had come to a decision on the case. If the objectors wished to continue or protest they could do so, but it would not alter the decision he had GOITle to in his mind.

Mr. Karmel asked for the case to be sent back for rehearing by the Licensing Authority—not the Deputy Licensing Authority.

For the respondent, Mr. J. E. B. 13owdler stated that the Deputy Licensing Authority's action was justified, as an overwhelming case had been put up by the applicant. After cross-examination his position was not shaken.

The Tribunal sent back the case for rehearing by the Licensing Authority.

comments powered by Disqus