Licensing Conspiracy Alleged
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Serious Charges Brought by Yorkshire Licensing Authority Against Two Operators
A COMPLICATED story involving
allegations of fraud and conspiracy in connection with A licences was told at Leeds City Police Court, last Friday, When Mr. Joseph Keeling, motor dealer and haulage contractor, of Viaduct Garages, Kirkstall Road, Leeds, and Mr. Thomas Whitehead, of Whitehead's Removals, Ltd., Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, appeared on summonses under the Road and Rail Traffic Act.
Mr. Keeling was accused of making false statements to obtain identity certificates and the granting • or variation of A licences. Mr. Whitehead was also charged with making false statements. and the two defendants were jointly accused of conspiracy to obtain the-grant or variation of licences in respect of goods vehicles.
Mr. G. H. B. Streatfeild, prosecuting for the Yorkshire Licensing Authority, explained that the main charge against Mr. Keeling was that, in his capacity of motor dealer, he sold or purported to sell a vehicle with a licence, and that for this purpose he made false statements to the Licensing Authority to obtain a licence in the name of someone else and transferred the licence to thfother vehicle.
A lorry registered UG3148, driven by James Stanley Dixon, was involved in a slight accident in Leeds on October 21, and it was afterwards found that it was carrying the identity certificate cif
another. lorry, UG7778. Dixon produced an Excise licence in the name of Arthur William Mallinson, who was for
merly in business as a haulage contractor at Rosebank Road, Leeds, and had since retired.
Mr. Mallinson, continued counsel, applied in 1934 for an A licence for his one vehicle, KW7034, but before it was granted he retired from business and sold the vehicle. It appeared that Mr. Keeling heard of this outstanding application, and he asked Mr. Mallinson to keep the matter in abeyance, with a view to having the licence granted, so that he (Keeling) could use it for his own purposes.
Afterwards, when the Ecence had been granted, somebody other than Mr: Mallinson paid the £1 10s. fee for the• licence, which Mr. Mallinson sold to Mr. Keeling for RS.
Mr. Streatfeild, proceeding, said that on March 27, 1936, the matter began to progress, because Mr. Keeling had secured a licence for a' lorry which he did not own. Mr. Mallinson would state that on that date Mr. Keeling persuaded him to sign a blank form, which Mr. Mallinson thought had something to do with the transfer of the licence. • Ultimately, it reached the Licensing Authority in the form of an application for the variation of the licence to a vehicle to. be acquired. The var tion was granted, subject to particali of the new vehicle being supplie This requiremerit set Mt. Ketling t problem of giving particulars of vehicle owned by Mr. Mallinson, w had retired.
On May 23, 1936, somebody call on the 'Licensinr, Authority with t registration book of a vehicle WX221 This book had Mr. Mallinson's nai on it as the supposed owner, but 11/ Mallinson never owned the vehic which was Mr. Keeling's property.
Transactions concerning ott vehicles were also mentioned.
Turning to another part of the pro: cution's case, Mr. Streatfeild said Ui 'a vehicle 1.G7778 was sold by a m named HoIdsworth to Mi. Whitehea who in turn sold it to a man nam Barton. It was alleged that while It Holdsworth was ill, Mr. Whitehe. 'asked Mrs. •Holclsworth to notify t authorities that vehicle UG7778 h been said by Mr. Holdswortli to haulier named Newsome.
Then, on May 15, 1936, an applic tion to vary the licence of Mr. Ke ing's lorry YG3714 to UG7778 was se to the Licensing Authority, support by a registration book purporting show that UG7778 was registered in t name of Mr. Newsome. It was alleg that the name Newsome was in t handwriting of Mr. Whitehead. T variation was granted.
The hearing was adjourned un to-day (Friday).