Police Pay Costs in Marking Case
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HASTINGS magistrates last week 'awarded Peter Keevil and Sons, Ltd., London. W.2, E5 5s. costs against the Hastings Police, after accepting a submission by the defence that there was no case to answer.
The company was charged with having failed to cause the unladen weight and the maximum legal speed. when not drawing a trailer, to be marked on a heavy motorcar, and with permitting the use of a vehicle without plates on the wheels, indicating the maximum nominal section of tyre equipment for which the wheels were designed. P.C. Russell, of the Hastings Borough Police, said that he saw the lorry in St. Leonards and, on examining the Road Fund licence, observed that the unladen weight was given as 4 tons. He admitted that the weight of the vehicle had not been checked.
Answering Mr. H. L. White, for the 832 defence, P.C. Russell said he understood that an articulated vehicle was, for taxation purposes, regarded as a complete vehicle.
Submitting that there was no case to answer, Mr. White said that throughout the regulations there was a clear distinction between a motor vehicle and a trailer. In this case, the tractor was capable of running by itself and the semi-trailer was partly superimposed on it. It had been said that the total weight of the complete outfit exceeded 3 tons, but no evidence had been given as to the weight of the tractor. That was the test. The tractor weighed 2 tons 8 lb.
It was only for revenue purposes that the tractor and semi-trailer were deemed to be one vehicle. So far as the regulations under which the summonses had been issued were concerned, the tractive unit and thC semi-trailer were two vehicles.