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
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196 
Haulier's chance to prove himself
Page 66
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Although the Metropolitan deputy LA, Mr. W. G. Levitt, expressed the greatest doubts about the application made by Mr. P. J. Moriaty on Monday for a new B licence, he decided that the applicant should be given the chance to prove his ability to operate a haulage business.
Mr. Moriaty explained that he already owned a 5-ton tipper which was under C licence. He had used this vehicle when he was working as a labourer. It was his intention, he said, to broaden the scope of his existing hardcore business to include sand and ballast; this and the haulage concern would then constitute equal shares of the business.
Mr. D. J. Linum, works manager with Graham Godmere td., said that his company was working on pile-driving contracts. In this kind of work, he said, it was essential that muck should be taken quickly from the site. But it was usually impossible to get large companies to do this work on short notice—especially when the amount to be moved was small.
This point about the difficulty in getting vehicles at short notice was echoed by Mr. J. Barratt, of McNicholas Cable and Engineering Co. Ltd. Mr. M. Thorpe, for the objectors, asked Mr. Barratt whether it was true that he, in fact, wanted the use of a "personal" haulier. Mr. Barratt said that this was so, and that he could see no reason why he should not.
Mr. Levitt said he had doubted whether a young man with no experience of the haulage business should be granted a licence. But he had decided that he would grant the licence, but restrict the customers to those who had written letters supporting the application.