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 
.Singles-from Coast: Issue Prejudged?
Page 119
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AST week,: the South Eastern Traffic Commissioners summoned A. Timpson and Sons, Ltd., and Keith and Boyle (London), Ltd., to show cause why their coastal services should not come under the general ruling of the Minister, restricting the issuing of single tickets from the coast. There were no objectors.
The hearing occupied the whole day and the Commissioners reserved their decision. They ,intimated,. however, that it they irapoSed. restrictions which were followed by an appeal, they, would recommend the 'Minister to make his riding effective only. _as from the 1937 season, .so as'not to interfere with this season's arrangements. Sir Henry-Piggott,' chairman, stated that, as a result of varying decisions, followed by the Minister's recent ruling, certain anomalies had arisen with
regard to the issue of tickets. The Commissioners did not think it desirable that there should' be any differentiation between operators.
mr. P. Idle, for Tinapsons; was out&i in his criticisin of.the ComMissioners, who, in sending out the notice of the hearing,.; states' That they pro-. posed to vary the conditions," thereby.. indicating ' that they bad prejudged the issue. Sir Henry said that the wording had been left to the clerical
• staff, but it had been intended• to convey that the companies were invited to show cause why a condition restricting bookings from the coast should not
be imposed. Further, the Commissioners had an open mind on the matter. Mr. Idle's main. subldission was that the present hearing conceined only the' backing, and that the backing Commissioners had'no Power to .vary a backing except in the normal way, when it came up for renewal. He thus made a 'distinction between the powers. of the primary and the backingCommissioners, which was not accepted by Sir -Henry
Piggott'. .
Tale remarked that the Point would, no doubt, be raised diiring:the test case in the High Court. He also argued that the Commissioners had no power to impose booking conditions On a licence: Mr. G. A. TheSiger, for Keith and Boyle, subsequently associated himself with Mr. Idle's arguments.
The gist of Timpson's case was that the company had never been restricted. 4 had organized its services to meet the demand and it was unfair that these facilities should now have to be withdrawn.
Mr. Thesiger claimed that the fact -,..that there had never -been objectors to his chent's unrestricted,' licence ;vas probf that there was no wasteful corn, petition and ,thatrtlipiiefoye, the licence should not be restricted. This general conclusion was not -accepted by the
Commissioners.
Mr. Eric Monkman, of Keith and Boyle, showed that his company had always operated a ' service " timetable, that is, one arranged so as to • cater for the traffic emanating from both ends. The concern Was not an excursion and tour operator promoted to express operation.