Smart's Customers Canvassed by Railways
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Smart application, which was Adjourned from September 24, came before the Western Licensing Authority', Mr, A. P. Nicholson,. at Bristol, last week..Mr. T. D. Ccirpe appeared for the applicant and Mr. IS. de IL Pereira represented the G.W.R. and L.M.S. Railway companies.
Mr. CorPe made a serious complaint against the railway companies' canvassing some of Mr. Smart's customers while the application was proceeding.
Mr. Smart declared that he had received a letter from one of his customers, asking him to forward to the: client a copy of a letter which he had submitted in support of his .application, as' the customer could not trace
haling' written such a letter. Mr. Smart was informed that this information was given to the client by one of the railway companies. Mr. Smart replied to his customer that he had no such letter. .
Another letter was produced to the Licensing Authority from one of Mr. Smart's customers, informing him that the railway company was inquiring why the client was supporting the application. Mr. Pereira called two witnesses, who were canvassers employed by the railway company at Birmingham, who stated that they called upon these firms in the normal course of business and that they may have mentioned the Smart application to them.
Mr. Nicholson said that perhaps the 'canvassers were a little over-zealous and
it was very regrettable. When an inquiry was proceeding, the railway canvassers should have no interviews with Mr. Smart's customers. In making his application for two additional vehicles, one to be operated on trunk service and the other for collection and delivery, Mr. Smart was supported by three customers from Birmingham and two from Bristol.
Mr. Smart also informed the Licensing Authority that he had a box packed and labelled for delivery in Birmingham to test the railway next-day delivery. It was collected from Bristol on October 18 and was not delivered in Birmingham until October 21. The box was then relabelled and addressed to Bristol. The railway company was asked to collect on October 22, but did not do so until the 23rd, and the bpx was delivered at Bristol at mid-day on October 26.
Mr, Pereira offered an explanation of the delay.