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 
Haulier's Appeal Allowed in High Court
Page 11
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Queen's Bench Divisional Court on Monday allowed with costs an appeal by George Curtis (Hauliers) Ltd., Haymoor Road, Pa rkstone, Poole, against conviction by magistrates at Ringwood on February 16 for a contravention of Regulation 38 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1955. The summons alleged that the overhang on a lorry owned by the company exceeded the permitted 9 ft. 6 in The company had been fined £4 with £4 costs.
Lord Parker, the Lord Chief Justice, said the lorry had in position a draw-bar used for towing.
Witham the draw bar, the lorry did not contravene the regulation, but when the bar was •in position it did. If the draw bar was treated as the rearmost part of the vehicle the overhang was greater than that permitted,
Lord Parker said he had little doubt that looking at the lorry as it stood in the road with the towbar bolted in position that the rearmost part Of the lorry was, in fact, measured to, the end of the towbar.
But the court was bound by a majority decision in 1952 in which it was held that a pantechnicon which exceeded the permitted length when the tailboard was lowered did not contravene the regulations,
When one had .a movable tow bar such as this, the vehicle was not extended.' every• time the towbar was put on any more than a pantechnicon was extended every time the tailboard was put down. Lord Parker said that with some rclucta.nce he felt that the magistrates had come to a wrong decision. Mr. Justice Gorman and Mr. Justice Salmon agreed.