AN IMPORTANT TEST CASE ON PETROL HAWKING,
Page 8
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Swansea stipendiary magistrate (Sir Edward Marley Samson, KU.) has reserved decision in what counsel engaged described as a test" case, the first of its kind in any court in the country, and of considerable interest to owners of motor lorries engaged in certain businesses The point at issue is whether or not large and small owners of motor lorries from which sales are made will have to take out hawkers' licences. " Many thousands of such licences would, if the prosecution's case is made out, have to be taken out," said counsel at the court hearing of the summons.
The defendants were the Anglo,: American Oil Co., Ltd., who were summoned for "that they, being persons licensed under the Petroleum Act, 1971, to keep petroleum, did unlawfully hawk such petroleum for sale without the proper licence."
The driver of defendant company's petrol-enginecl lorry was summoned for aiding and abetting.
Counsel for the prosecution said that it was contended defendants had made themselves liable to a fine of £10 Under the Hawkers Act Uses), and the whole
IV28 point was whether or not it was necessary for the owner of a motor vehicle engaged upon such business as the vehicle in question was employed upon to take out a licence to hawk.
Tradespeople were called upon by the employee of the firm who was in charge of the lorry and asked how much petroleum they required, and were served by the driver with the quantities asked for.
It would be shewn that tr'aclesreen purchased petroleum for their own use. When the employee defendant was asked if he had a hawker's licence, he responded, " No! I have done this for 14 years and have never been asked such a question before."
What is a "Hawker's Vehicle " ?
The point was whether a vehicte of this type could be characterized as a hawker's vehicle, in view of the description of such vehicles in the Hawkers Act as being "drawn by a horse or other beast of burden." He contended that the change in vehicle did not entitle one to follow a hawker's practice of solicitation immune from the necessity of licence.
Counsel quoted Stone's Justices' Manual, which has a note to the chaptera dealing with hawkers, under which he thought it was advised to count a motor-engined vehicle as equivalent to a beast of burden.
Counsel for the defence submitted that there was no case to answer. There was no precedent for the prosecution's interpretation of Stone's note, and it was necessary strictly to construe the Act of Parliament describing hawkers as persona plying a trade from town to town and with vehicles drawn by beasts of burden. '
He contended that the practice of large trusts in delivering upon demand from a motor lorry was a public convenience and not a solicitation in the hawking sense. Many hundreds of firms using this ready-delivery method of sale were affected, and a judgment against defendants world be against the public interest, and the spirit of the Act, which was never intended to embrace large firms such as the defendant firm.
The stipendiary said he would reserve his decision for "sonic considerable time in order to consult authorities en the matter."