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 
Long-trailer Bid Adjourned
Page 15
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE question of whether or not a long), length trailer can be operated within the weight restriction under which R.A.H. Transporters Ltd., of Darlington, operate a four-vehicle A licence was raised by objectors before the Northern Licensing Authority, Mr. I. A. T. Hanlon, at Darlington on Wednesday. After being told by Mr. T. H. Campbell-Wardlaw, for Siddle C. Cook Ltd., Sunter Bros Ltd. and A. Stevens and Co. Haulage Ltd., that an appeal judgment of the Transport Tribunal concerning the licence of R.A.H. was now the subject of a submission to the Court of Appeal, and after being told that other applications were pending for substitution of the vehicles on the licence, Mr. Hanlon allowed R.A.H. to substitute a tractor but adjourned the question of the substitution of the trailer.
Before giving his decision, Mr. Hanlon said, he would have to consider the use of all the trailers on the licence. To do this it was necessary to know what trailers the applicant had in possession, the weights and types and what they were used for. He called for a full list of trailers with descriptions and unladen weights.
FANTASTIC STORY NAR. D. I. R. MUIR, the Metropolhan 11(1 Licensing Authority, on Wednesday told Portsmouth motor dealer Mr. F. A. Gingell that his was "quite the most fantastic story I have heard in fourand-a-half years."
Mr. Gingell told the Authority he had purchased a lorry from Coward Bros. of Walthamstow in June, 1960, and employed a London driver, but because of ignorance, he pleaded, did not ensure that the A licence was transferred to him. In fact, the licence was still in the name of Mr. A. J. Reynolds, who had originally sold the vehicle to the Walthamstow firm. This was the case before Mr. Muir. who had to consider the position of Reynolds under Section 177(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, which allows an Authority to withdraw a licence when a vehicle has ceased to be used under the licence. Mr. Reynolds did not appear in court.
Mr. Gingell used the vehicle for nearly two years—without a valid licence—then because of illness sold it to Mr. R. J. Fox in February, 1962. Acting on advice, Mr. Fox had applied, earlier this year to the Authority for the licence, assuming that it was in Gingell's name, when it was revealed that actually it was still in Reynolds' name.
Fox had not used the vehicle for the past few months as it was stripped down after the bad winter and also because of the uncertainty of the licence position. He had paid only a third of the purchase price to Gingell and had agreed to pay the balance as and when he was granted the licence.
Mr. Muir adjourned the case, pending further inquiries.