AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

"The Commercial Helpful Part in Motor" Plays Court Case A COPY

10th March 1939, Page 38
10th March 1939
Page 38
Page 38, 10th March 1939 — "The Commercial Helpful Part in Motor" Plays Court Case A COPY
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 The Commercial Motor was produced for the defence and was taken by the magistrates when they retired to consider their decision on a case at Rollesby (Norfolk) Police Court, on Tuesday. Stanley John Gowen, of Great Yarmouth, was summoned for using a lorry for a purpose for which it was neither licensed nor insured. Mr. Arthur John Spandler, also of Great Yarmouth, was summoned for aiding and abetting in the first case and for permitting in the other.

P.C. Sparrow stated that the lorry was drawing a foreman's office on wheels. The licence did not cover a trailer. Mr. P. Bainbridge, defending, said that Mr. Spandler owned the lorry and employed Gowen. He had instructed Gowen not to draw any trailer, but on this occasion both Gowen

and the lorry were hired out to a contracting concern and the instructions were given by a foreman. Holding up a copy of The Commercial Motor for November 11, 1938, he said that it dealt with a case in which a tar barrel was held to be connected with road works, and, therefore, to be engineering plant, which is exempted. This copy of The Commercial Motor, he said, was shown to the policeman next day. A vehicle was not merely "anything that went on wheels" and to be a trailer it must be something constructed for the carriage of goods or passengers.

The chairman (Mr. C. W. Waters) said that the magistrates did not consider that a foreman's office on wheels came within the definition of engineering plant. The summonses were dismissed under the First Offenders Act.


comments powered by Disqus