£500 Fines on Yorkshire Haulier
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
VINES totalling £500 were imposed 1at Doncaster, on June 5, upon Mr. Harry Richards, haulage contractor, of Cooke Street, Bentley, managing director of two companies, J. and H. Richards, Ltd., and Lancashire and Yorkshire Transport Services, Ltd. He pleaded guilty to cases of attempted false pretences in connection with negotiations for the acquisition of lorries by the Army authorities, Lancashire and Yorkshire Transport Services, Ltd., was fined Al.
For the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. R. C. Linney said that, at the outbreak of war, the Northern Command hired vehicles from Mr. Richards, and later acquired some of them. The prosecution had reference to documents which Mr. Richards supplied, the prosecution alleging that there had been bogus sales between one company and another. Giving details of four cases, Mr. Linney said that, in one case, a lorry which J. and H. Richards, Ltd., purchased for £100 was, according to an invoice, sold to Lancashire and Yorkshire Transport Services, Ltd., for £265. The latter company told the Northern Command that it was willing to sell the vehicle fur £255, and, in correspondence, sent a receipt for £350. The prosecution submitted that there was never a genuine sale at all.
Mr. R. Cleworth, for the defence, said that Mr. Richards was a business man of integrity. The genuine market value of used vehicles soared, and defendant acted as if it was done in ordinary competitive business, knowing that the authorities would cut down his price.. Repairs to these particular vehicles had been costly to defendant—in one case £129, in a second £158, and in another £204. The reason why no cash sales took place between one of the companies and the other was that Lancashire and Yorkshire Transport Services, Ltd., had no capital. It was intended to set off the amounts against a loan account.
The presiding magistrate said that if Mr. Richards had not been so frank he would have been sent to prison. • Defendant was fined £100 on each of five charges, the Bench ordering that £20 of each £100 be for the payment of costs.