is a Steam-roller a Goods Vehicle?
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
W/HETHER the driver of a steam W roller should hold an II.G.V, driving licence was argued before Nottingham magistrates at the Shire Hall on Saturday of last week, when Mr. R. F. Oldfield, Stoke Holy Cross, Norfolk, was summoned for driving a steam roller at Stapleford without the necessary licence. The Eddison Steam Roller Co. was summoned for permitting the offence.
Mr. L. W. A. White, prosecuting for the East Midland Traffic Commissioners, subm.tted that the roller was adapted for a In vinat goods, since it towed a living vac and a water cart.
Mr. Armstrong Jones, for the defence, contended that as the roller was not fitted with pneumatic ;tyres, did not exceed 5 m.p.h., and was not subject to Road Fund duty, it was not a goods vehicle within the meaning of Section 31 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934.
There was more at stake, he said, than the question of the driver's licence, for, if the case were proved, it might well be suggested that the machine was, in fact, a heavy goods vehicle, and so it would have to carry an Excise licence. Since the Eddison concern owned 364 rollers this would be a serious matter.
Mr. White said that local authorities around Nottingham had all their steamroller drivers licensed to drive heavy goods vehicles. • The magistrates decided that the case had been proved, but it would be dismissed on payment of is. costs and advocate's fee of two guineas, Mr.' Jones asked for a case to be stated by' the magistrates in: the event of its going to the High Court.