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 
DOES CHANGE OF WORK JUSTIFY LICENCE REFUSAL? Unless the applicant
Page 75
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
proved that his services were not in excess of requirements, a haulier who changed the nature of his business during the currency of his first licence should be refused a renewal.
This sweeping submission was made by Mr. W. Weir, for the L.M.S. Railway Co., when that concern and the L.N.E. Railway Co. appealed against the Northern Scotland Licensing Authority's grant of an A licence to Mr. David R. Stuart, of Aberdeen. The case was heard in Aberdeen, last week.
Mr. Weir claimed that sufficient weight had not been attached by the Licensing Authority to the railway evidence of facilities for the transport of fish to London. He also argued that Mr. Stuart had changed the character of his business, Mr. W. D. Connochie, for Mr. Stuart, said that his client was an owner-driver, who would be put out of business if the appeal succeeded. The nature of his trade had not changed, but had extended. Mr. Connochio added that eight licences for a similar kind of work had been passed without objection, and one of the licensees subcontracted work to Mr. Stuart.
Decision was reserved.