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
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176 
Speeding Conviction Quashed
Page 74
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A DECISION of the Llandilo magis trates convicting Albert Richard Meredithof driving a lorry and trailer at a speed over 12 m.p.h. was reversed, on Tuesday, by a King's Bench Divisional Court consisting of the Lord Chief Justice and Justices Humphreys and Singleton. According to the case stated by the magistrates, the appellant was summoned under Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, and the .evidence showed that he drove 'at 29 m.p.h. The appellant contended that as all the wheels of the lorry and trailer were equipped with pneumatic tyres he was entitled under the first schedule of the 1934 Act to travel at 20 m.p.h.
The magistrates took the view that the use of pneumatic tyres did not en. title him to drive at more than 12 m.p.h. and fined him £10 and suspended his licence for three months. Mr. R. Harding, for the appellant, said the case turned upon the interpretation of the first schedule of the 1934 Act.
The Lord Chief Justice said the words of the schedule were clear that when a lorry and trailer were equipped with pneumatic tyres the speed limit was 20 m.p.h. Therefore the appeal must be allowed and the conviction quashed, but no costs would be allowed, as there were no merits in the case.