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 
APPEAL ON LOWESTOFT FISH TRAFFIC CASE
Page 78
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DURING the past few days hearing has been proceeding at Norwich of the important appeal relating to the dispute as to the transport of fish by road from Lowestoft harbour. The appellants are the British. Trawlers Federation, Ltd., Grimsby; Consolidated Fisheries, Ltd., Grimsby; Messrs. Valori Brothers, Norwich ; Mr. Arthur Craske, East Dereham ; and Mr. C. S. Mortimer, Ipswich, and the appeal is against the decisions of Mr. Justice Branson, reported in our issues dated May 31 and July 19, 1932.
The London and North Eastern Railway Co., as owner of the Lowestoft C28 fish docks, has required any person removing fish by road to obtain a licence for the vehicle used and has imposed a condition that such fish should not be transported more than 12 miles, and should be consumed within that radius. The railway company has a cross-appeal against certain declarations contained in the ruling íof the King's Bench Division.
Briefly, the trouble arises out of the fish market being located on railway owned property. For the appellants, Mr. Schiller stated that, whereas at Hull the company had power to close the market or to impose conditions upon the sale of fish, at Lowestoft the company was under a statutory obligation to keep open the harbour and could not impose conditions of sale.
Mr. Miller, for the railway company, submitted that it was a misconception of the legal position to imagine that traders were entitled to take into the dock any commercial vehicle they like, and added that it was the threat of congestion in the docks which led the railway company to take action.
At the time of closing for press the position is that judgment by Lords Justices Scrutton, Lawrence and Greer has been reserved.