AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Rail Bid to Crush Established Hauliers ?

29th October 1937
Page 85
Page 85, 29th October 1937 — Rail Bid to Crush Established Hauliers ?
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

WHAT is regarded in road-transport Iflf circles as a reversion to the railway interests' original line of attack in the Smart appeal case, was put forward at the hearing of an application before the Yorkshire Deputy • Licensing Authority (Mr. E. Russell Gurney), at Wakefield, last Friday.

Although the applicants, Messrs. E. Jones and Sons, corn millers and hauliers, of Occupation Lane, Pudsey, were applying only for the regrant, without variation, of a B licence in respect of two vehicles, on the same tonnage as in the basic year, the L.M.S. and L.N.E. Railway companies objected.

Three railway witnesses were called to prove suitability of the railway facilities, although in cross-examination for the applicants, Mr. F. G. Ribbings, A.R.O. Yorkshire Area secretary, elicited admissions that the railways could not offer facilities for direct transport by road, nor tould they prove that the applicants had abstracted any traffic. Mr. Sturge, railway counsel, submitted that the objectors had proved the suitability of their facilities, and, consequently, the application should be refused outright, unless the applicants were prepared to accept a michreduced radius of operation.

In reply, Mr. Ribbings said that the submissions by Mr. Sturge were little less than shocking. If upheld, they meant practically the end of even such old-established operators as the applicants. How could such an application by a basic-year operator be refused, when, since the application was lodged, the Yorkshire Licensing Authority had admitted newcomers to the industry, and had granted additional vehicles to other operators in the area?

Mr. Ribbings went on to suggest that Mr. Sturge's submissions went much farther than the modified arguments which were ultimately put forward on behalf of the railway companies in the Smart appeal case by Mr. A. TyIor.

Decision was reserved.