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 
'DUAL CAPACITY' ROLE IN TRAFFIC COURTS
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DURING the hearing of an application at Liverpool recently, wherein J. E. Hodgkiss, of Leigh, Lanes, sought a new A licence for two vehicles subject to the surrender of one on B and another on contract, his advocate, Mr. J. Backhouse, raised objection to a British Railways' representative acting as advocate and giving evidence in support of the railways' objection.
The attention of the North Western deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. A. H. Jolliffe, was directed to the presence of another railways' representative who could have given evidence, and it was submitted that the evidence given by the acting advocate should be regarded as a statement and that he was not entitled to make a submission on the application.
Mr. Jolliffe indicated that he was inclined to agree with Mr. Backhouse's argument but he decided to allow a submission to be made; later, he proposed to raise the issue with the Licensing Authority.
Although criticism was confined to the fact that another railwayman was available to give evidence, the resulting publicity appears to suggest a wider principle at stake— should one person be debarred from acting