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 WINS IN ACQUIRED-VEHICLE CASE
Page 114
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
EFUSAL of the West Midland 1%. Deputy Licensing Authority, Dr. Dawson Sadler, to renew a Stoke-onTrent haulier's A licence, in respect of a vehicle the haulier had taken over, was the subject of an appeal before the Tribunal, at Birmingham, last week. The appellant, Mr. Herman TideswelL of Kingsley, Stoke-on-Trent, won the case and was allowed costs of £7 18s. The London, Midland and c64 Scottish Railway Co. was respondent. Mr. J. Wilk said that Mr. Tideswell, in June, 1938, took over a vehicle, in addition to two vehicles he already operated on A licences. Dr. Sadler renewed two licences, but refused to renew the licence in respect of the vehicle taken over.
For the railway company, Mr. J. Else contended that Mr. Tideswell's figures for tonnage carried, and cash turnover, had declined and that a third vehicle was unnecessary. An application by Mr. Wilk to call fresh evidence was granted, and Mr. Donald Proctor Ratcliff gave evidence of Mr. Tideswell's figures for tonnage carried and cash turnover since April, 1937. Mr. Else commented that some of the figures witness had given had not been submitted before the Deputy Licensing Authority.