UNAUTHORISED RUNNING : A BUS CASE AT WIDNES.
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Private Owner Summoned for Running His Vehicles 1 After an Unsuccessful Appeal to the Ministry of Transport. I
FOLLOWING an unsuccessful appeal to the Ministry of Transport against the refusal of the Widnes Corporation to license his motorbuses, Mr. T. J. Lee, who continued to operate his vehicles, was summoned at Widnes a few days ago. During the hearing of the case some novel points of objection were raised, and these are of interest in view or similar proceedings in London.
The first point, a ltigal one, raised by the defence was: By what right and authority the proceedings were brought before the court? Defendant's solicitor
had asked for the production of the minutes of the general purposes committee and of the town council, and was informed that the town clerk had laid the information on the authority of the general purposes committee.-When the summonses were issued the authority was not confirmed by the town council. It was contended that the proceedings were out of order, and the town clerk had no authority until the minutes were confirmed.
The prosecution pointed out that the town clerk had ample authority under
the town's police clauses and the Public Health Act. • The objection was then raised that the 'letter froth the Minister of Transport, upholding the corporation in its contention, was signed by an assistant secretary. Therefore it was not a properly drawn up order in accordance with the Ministry of Transport regulations.
The chairman of the Bench said that the evidence of the letter showed that it iz a genuine order, and that defendant was driving unlicensed vehicles.
On behalf of the corporation it was alleged that defendant had deliberately flouted the Ministry, the licensing authority and the law. If Mr. Lee would give an assurance to step running it would not press the case.
Mr. Essenhigh, for Mr. Lee, said that his client had carried on a hackney carriage business for some years, and that the corporation then encroached on his
preserves. At that time lie was approached by private individuals to run some sort of service through the housing estate to which the corporation were not running. He had maintained a good and efficient service, and in twelve months his vehicles had carried thousands of passengers. It was, he said, a curious position that the general purposes committee was the licensing authority and had power to adjudicate upon competitors.
After some discussion in court, defendant gave an undertaking that he would not run the buses again. He was fined 12 and £5 5s. costs.