AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Agricultural "Producer and Dealer" Controversy

10th March 1939, Page 38
10th March 1939
Page 38
Page 38, 10th March 1939 — Agricultural "Producer and Dealer" Controversy
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?

OF wide potential importance to all agriculturists who operate commercial vehicles is a decision recently taken at Southampton Police Court. The police had issued eight summonses against Mr. Paul Klepper, Southampton, in respect of alleged contravention of regulations governing lorries used in this area for the conveyance of pigs. The defendant's main contention, in which he was supported by the National Farmers' Union, was that he was not an ordinary dealer requiring a C licence, but was authorized under an agricultural licence granted in accordance with the Road Traffic Act. The lorry was used in conjunction with his business as a pig producer, and not as a dealer.

Police Sergeant Emery described how he issued licences for the carriage of pigs to and from market, and that being given a register, the uses of which were explained, defendant said, "I willnot keep the register; I am not a pig dealer or pig keeper." Later the police found that the register was blank. . Cross-examined, Sergeant Emery admitted that he did not know that defendant was registered as a pig producer under the Pigs Marketing Board.

Defending on this summons, Mr. C. F. Hiscock submitted the following important points:—If defendant was an ordinary dealer he would have to take out a C licence. The agricultural licence issued at Winchester, entitled him to use the vehicle only if engaged in agriculture and for the conveyance of produce of, or articles required for, agricultural land in his occupation. . Defendant had extensive piggeries on six acres of land. He was under contract to deliver 300 pigs this year.

The Bench found the defendant guilty on the summons for failing to keep a register and, on the submission of defendant's representative, the other summonses were adjourned. In the meantime, the matter was of considerable importance and would be considered by the N.E.U. ; an appeal is contemplated.


comments powered by Disqus