AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Mobile-shop Operators Fined.

10th February 1933
Page 73
Page 73, 10th February 1933 — Mobile-shop Operators Fined.
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords : Eastbourne, Haulage, Bach

The reference in our issue dated January 20 to the plan of certain South Wales municipalities to minimize the use of mobile shops was given Point by a case at Neath Police Court last Monday. Two Maesteg men were summoned under an .ancient market bylaw for selling meat from a lorry.

The chief constable said that numerous complaints had been received from shop owners concerning the use of mobile shops. The magistrates thought that meat selling from vehicles was a bad practice, but the chairman, Mr. B. Davies, said,. that no doubt the defendants were ignorant of these old by-laws, and itwas the first case of its kind he recalled. A fine of 10s. -was imposed on each defendant.

With the object of helping operators The Commercial Motor pointed out that certain old by-laws might be brought into force against them.

Charges for Eastbourne's Haulage.

The highways committee of Eastbourne Corporation recommends the acceptance of the tender of Mr. j. B. Leach for the hire of 30-cwt. lorries at Xs. 543. per hour and for 5-ton lorries at 8s. per hour.

Serious State of Richmond Bridge.

Middlesex and Surrey county engineers have been instructed to report upon the condition of Richmond Bridge and a preliminary examination indi cates a serious state of affairs. The protective sheeting of the timber crib on which a pier rests is decayed, leaving the timber foundations undermined and unsupported at one end. Temporary measures are to be taken to prevent further scouring, pending the submission of a reheme for dealing with the whole of the foundations.

Tags

Organisations: Neath Police Court
People: B. Davies
Locations: Surrey, Middlesex

comments powered by Disqus