Hauliers Warned About Overloading
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FTER a long hearing at Newcastle L upon Tyne last week, the Northern zensing Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Litton, decided to take no action against :ee hauliers whom he had called before
n to show .cause why their licences ould not be revoked or suspended.
For the Authority, Mr. R. Hardman id that Joseph Robert Young, of msett, County Durham, who held ntract A, B and C licences, had failed comply with the conditions of his vaces. In particular, on July 6, he had en convicted at West Castle Ward agistrates' Court for operating a vehicle th its rear axle overloaded by I ton cwt., and operating a further vehicle at was 1 ton 3 cwt. overloaded. In Idition, four prohibition notices had :en issued against the haulier.
Loaded by Hoppers Mr. Young, questioned by Mr. T. FL ampbell Wardlaw (who represented all ree operators) said that on the day in aestion four vehicles had been carrying Tie. At the quarry the lime was loaded hoppers—there was no weighbridge arby. The vehicles had to travel into inderland to be check-weighed, and tere was no provision for offloading if hicles were found to be overweight, either was there any facility at the orporation weighbridge for weighing chides axle by axle.
Since the convictions, he had requested le weighbridge operator not to issue ckets if the vehicles were overloaded. Mr. Hanlon said he could not allow nyone to use the excuse that because acre was no weighbridge a haulier could o about the countryside 14 tons overaaded.
Constant Concern Anderson Brothers (Westerhope), Ltd., f Newcastle, were then called before the ,uthority. In their case, said Mr. lardman, they had been convicted at edlingtort on July I for overloading a chicle by 1 ton 7 civt. Last November ley had been similarly convicted and ad been warned by the Licensing ,uthority that their licence would be :yoked if convicted again. There were !veral prohibition notices issued against ie company.
Mr. A. T. C. Anderson, director, said iat the question of overloading was of onstant concern to his company. The onviction in July concerned a vehicle arrying washed sand from a quarry at ireenside Quarry, which had been aaded by a hopper or excavator. There as no weighbridge there and the load ad to be estimated and then taken two iiles to be weighed.
In the case of R. W. A. Hepple, Ltd., f Croxdale, Durham, Mr. Hardman said alit they were convicted at West Castle Vard in August for overloading a vehicle y 2 tons 7-,1. cwt. on the rear axle. There were four prohibition notices issued against the firm.
Giving 'evidence, Mrs. Olga Harrison, a director, said the situation was the same as described in the previous cases, the nearest weighbridge being four miles away.
Mr. Hanlon, giving his decision, said that he was satisfied that as a result of overloading, particularly over a particular axle,. there was a danger to the public. It was true that operators were in the hands of their drivers to some extent, but it was very significant that where there was a breach, it usually reacted to the financial advantage of the operator. He thought it was quite wrong for the owners of weighbridges to issue tickets where vehicles were overloaded.
He would take no further action against the three operators before him, except to "enter them" as a warning.