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
137
138
139
140 
Marriage licence refused A MATRIMONIAL and business partnership between a
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Yorkshire farmer and his wife led to problems when Mr A. W. Caine, of Helmsley, holder of an 0-licence for one vehicle since 1969, sought a new licence in the joint names of himself and his (newly wed) wife. Mr Caine's appeal against the refusal of the licence was heard in his absence by the Transport Tribunal this week.
Mr Caine had written to the Licensing Authority suggesting that a public inquiry was not necessary since all that was needed was the trivial matter of adding his wife's initials to the licence.
The deputy Licensing Authority called Mr Caine to a public inquiry and suggested that the LA would want to see supporting statements as to financial standing and maintenance provision. Mr Caine did not appear and the licence was refused for lack of prosecution.
Mr Caine wrote to the Transport Tribunal, appealing against the decision. He said that he was unable to leave his farm and attend the Tribunal personally as this would involve a 600 mile journey.
Tribunal President, Mr G. S. Squibb, said the obvious comment was that Mr Caine would not have had to travel 600,. miles to the Beverley inquiry, in August. Mr Caine had completely failed to understand that it was the LA's duty to satisfy himself that the provisions of sub-section 2 of S 64 of the 1968 Act would be complied with.
Refusing the appeal for lack of prosecution, Mr Squibb said there was nothing to prevent a fresh application being made. He hoped that if the LA called Mr Caine before a public inquiry the appellant would see the wisdom of attending it, with the information.