Annis in a Cleft Stick ?
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ASUGGESTION that if Mr. F. Anniis's evidence given in the present hearing were correct, in that he claimed to be a carrier of heavy loads before the war, he might have obtained his licence in 1937 by misrepresentation. was made before the Metropolitan Licensing Authority this week by Mr. D. L. McDonnell, for the Railway Executive when the hearing of the application of Annis and Co.. Ltd., for A licences was resumed.
Mr. H. T, Lennard. for the applicant, said at the outset that part of the application, in respect of three vehicles and three trailers to be acquired, had been withdrawn.
Referring to the interview that Mr. F. Annis and his father, Mr. H. C. Annis, was alleged to have had with railway representatives in 1937. Mr. McDonnell said that on the first day of the hearing Mr. Annis had not realized its full significance, and had stated that he merely had no recollection of its having taken place.
It was alleged that at this interview, Messrs. Annis had intimated to the . railway representatives that they intended to remain carriers of road material. On this understanding, the railways' objections to their application were withdrawn.
Mr. McDonnell said that when two of the railway representatNes appeared in the witness box at the present hearing and gave evidence about this inter
a30 view, Mr. E. Annis became " rattled " and was prepared to swear on oath that he had never met them.
According to Mr. Annis, continued Mr. McDonnell, he was a carrier of machinery before the war. If this were -true, the possible inference to be drawn was that he obtained his pre-war licence by "fraudulent misrepresentation." Mr. McDonnell, however, submitted that this was not true. Annis and Co.,Ltd., was a newcomer to heavy haulage.
Mr. McDonnell alleged that the carriage of road material for Crow, Catchpole, Ltd., was transferred to the applicant's contract-A vehicles and the haulage of machinery to the A-licensed lorries. In any case, with the vehicles it was authorized to use, the applicant company could not carry loads greater than II tons if it were to comply with the Authorization of Special Types Order. To carry greater loads, vehicles must have been hired.
Mr. McDonnell submitted that no evidence had been given by Mr. Annis to support his application. His company was a newcomer and Mr. McDonnell asked that the application be dismissed in toto.
Mr. H. T. Lennard in his submission quoted the evidence of the witnesses about the increase in the quantity of heavy plant in this country.
• After eight days of hearing. the case has been adjourned until April.