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 
L.A. and Lime Racket
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WHEN E. Hall and Sons, Ferryhill, Co. Durham, applied last week for a variation of their B licence to allow them to carry lime for another firm within a 60 miles radius of Ferryhill, the Licensing Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, said he would not grant the application unless he was given further particulars • about the amount of lime carried, the rates received for the work, the name of the persons paying the rates, and any other details which might be requested.
Mr. Hanlon said that public money was being spent on agricultural lime, and it had been alleged at a public inquiry that there was a racket by which the actual hauliers did not receive the full amount claimed from the Government. Hauliers were being employed at rates very much lower than the rate actually paid by the Government, and if this were true he would find out the facts.
He alleged that two hauliers, acting on instructions from a lime agent, had refused to give the Licensing Authority details of the rates they were receiving. This conduct was against the meaning of the Act, and would be taken into consideration when the hauliers applied for the renewal of their licences. When public money was involved, then the people actually doing the work were entitled to the money.