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 
Haulier Paid £6,500 for Two Years'
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Hiring: Extra Vehicle Granted A HAULIER who claimed that he had rA paid about £6,500 to sob-contractors over the past two years because he was unable to medt the demands of his customers, successfully applied for a new A-licence vehicle at Carlisle on Monday.
better than that of British Railways, who could not compete with private hauliers.
Mr. Richard Briggs, assistant manager at the United Coke and Chemicals Co,, Ltd., Lowca, Cumberland, said the railways or British Road Services could
handle the loads at present carried by . Mr. 'Eye but not as-satisfactorily.
Evidence that he had been deprived of Orders for Wood because Mr. Eye had no surplus vehicles was given by Mr. Thomas. Lishrnan, Millom, a timber merchant, who said he could not use B.R.S. because they refused to allow their vehicles into the plantations.
Mr. Alexander Lavery, manager of the 13.R.S. depot at Whitehaven, said his vehicles could' easily do the type of work about which the witnesses had spoken. Mr. F. J. McHugh, for the B.T.C., submitted that there had been little evidence of any inconvenience to customers.
Lower Rates
Mr. W. McKnight Bell, for the applicant, pointed out that the prices charged by B.R.S. and the railways were much higher than those charged by Mr. 'Eye, although Mr. Eye's rates were mot lower than those of other hauliers in the area. The point . about sub-contractors was most important, for it meant that Mr. Eye was paying 10-20 per cent. of hisgross •turnover to those people. Anyone who had to rely on sub-contractors for this percentage of turnover was in a perilous condition.
Mr. 0. W. Duncan, Northern Deputy Licensing Authority, said he was satisfied that the applicant had established a prima fade case, which had not been rebutted by the objectors. He was impressed by the fact that five.of Mr. Fye's customers had appeared to give evidence on his behalf. It was clear that the customer, within certain limits, was entitled to the particular form of transport he required. He thought, therefore, that he ought to grant the application in the interests of the community.