Objectors Protest at Resumed Regan Bros Inquiry
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
T HERE was a lively exchange between I counsel for the objectors and Mr. J. Mercer, representing Regan Bros. (Haulage) Ltd. at the Metropolitan traffic court on Wednesday, on the third day of Regan's bid to add six articulated vehicles, with refrigerated containers, to an A licence.
Despite a 45-minute delay in commencing the hearing, to enable documents to be agreed by the parties, and to complete the Licensing Authority's file, Mr. P. Kenworthy Browne, for R. Cornell Ltd., one of the objectors, protested when Mr. J. H. Astin, traffic manager of Regan Bros., produced a comprehensive list of the firm's difficulties. " It is now the third day of the hearing ", Mr. Kenworthy Browne told Mr. Astin. "Why was not this produced before?"
Mr. Astin replied that it had been produced in response to a request by objectors at the previous hearing. Mr. Kenworthy Browne: "It is quite monstrous we should be faced with this on the third day."
Mr. Mercer rejoined; "He was asked to do it and he did it. What should he have done?" Mr. Kenworthy Browne suggested that the list was far more detailed than any evidence given hitherto, at which the LA (Mr. D. I. R. Muir) commented: "If you look at the transcript, all the vessels arc mentioned somewhere."
Miss E'. Havers, for Union Cartage Co. Ltd. protested: "My clients checked every ship on the list, and they couldn't find the ships mentioned in the months given. It is quite intolerable we should be told at this stage that some of the dates shown on the list were wrong." Continuing, Miss Havers said she crosszexarnined at the previous hearing, thinking the document was correct. Mr. Astin said he had possibly added some items, but he had certainly not deleted any.
Mr. H. K. J. Schiemann, for BRS (Meat Haulage) Ltd., suggested to Mr. Mercer that he should consider withdrawing the application in view of the inaccuracies in the documents. Mr. Mercer rejoined that there was independent evidence of need for more refrigerated vehicles and that the outburst by the representative of BRS should be ignored.
After the LA had observed to Mr. Mercer: " You're not on very good ground", Miss Havers and Mr, Kenworthy Browne again complained of the difficulty the objectors were in, in facing at short notice Regan's detailed list of difficulties.
Mr. Astin said he regarded R. Cornell Ltd. as local carriers and he would not normally sub-contract long-distance traffic to them. Regan's "dock men" were authorized to contact other hauliers when it was clear this was necessary.
The LA: "Do you mean to say dock work is sub-contracted on your behalf?" Mr. Astin: "Yes, 1 give them authority to hire when there is difficulty."
Mr. Kenworthy Browne suggested that there was no evidence that Cornell had been approached, for his clients recorded every such approach in a book. Mr. Astin said he trusted his dock staff, and they assured him they had approached Cornell and other objectors.
Mr. K. C. Dempsey, assistant to the management of Union Cartage Co. Ltd., said that despite differences between his principals and Regan's over rates matters, requests for help had been honoured. His firm were "not overwhelmed" by requests for mechanically refrigerated vehicles; if customers required their vehicles to be converted this would be done.
Mr. M. W. A. Norris, assistant general manager of R. Cornell Ltd., said most customers were happy with insulated vehicles using chemical cooling methods. These methods were satisfactory for meat loaded on Friday and delivered on Monday. Cornell, Mr. Norris went on, went to Liverpool, Birmingham and Newcastle regularly, and farther if necessary.
The decision was reserved.