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 
Davis takeover adjourned
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The application by Chesford Haulage Ltd., of London, El, to take over the A and B licences of Charles Poulter Ltd., also of London, El, was adjourned by Mr. D. I. R. Muir, the Metropolitan LA, at Acton on Tuesday.
The adjournment was requested by Mr. A. Garfitt, representing the applicant, to enable Mr. Joseph Young, a director, and the company's accountant, to attend and give evidence.
The hearing will be resumed on October 1 at Acton.
Charles Poulter Ltd. has 79 vehicles on A licence conditioned "General goods, Great Britain" and 12 on B licence conditioned "General goods within 30 miles", Its directors are Mr. Solly Davis and his son Ronald.
Also at the hearing, as an interested party, were representatives of the Anglo Israel Bank.
Objecting was the NEC in respect of BRS represented by Mr. Richard Yorke. The NEC objection was that it would "oppose any grant on the general ground that these applications are merely a sham intended to enable the controlling shareholders of Charles Poulter Ltd. to operate through a legally distinct corporate identity and thereby avoid the consequences of the past record of Charles Poulter Ltd. as a carrier of goods, and also to antici pate the possible consequences of a conviction resulting in the matter of R. v. Charles Poulter Ltd., and others, which was committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court earlier this year."
It concluded: -The Corporation will in any event submit that, even if a case for the application is otherwise made out, it would be a proper exercise of the discretion of the LA to defer any decision in the matter until after the trial of R. v. Charles Poulter Ltd. and others".
Opening for the applicant, Mr. Garfitt said that Charles Poulter's trading figures for the year ended March 31 1968 were £268,000 and for the following year £496,000. Of those totals BRS work accounted for £1,274 and £967 respectively.
Under cross-examination, Mr, W. J. Clark, a director of Chesford, told Mr. Yorke that he held 500 fully paid shares. He agreed there were a total of 21,000 shares, with 500 allocated to Mr. Young and the rest to Mr. Young's two nieces.
Mr. Yorke argued that it was strange that the only company representative attending was one holding only 2i, per cent of the effective control.
Mr. Clark admitted he did not know the whereabouts of the company's capital nor had he seen its bank account. He further admitted he did not know who had signing powers on company cheques.