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
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154 
Tangle Over Sale of Business l- rHE sale of a business
Page 75
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
formed the 1 sUbject of considerable 'discussion before the Appeal Tribunal, at Liverpool, last welt when the appeal of Mr. Henry Draper, 59, Sandy Lane, Skelmersdale, against the NorthWestern Licensing Authority's refusal to grant an A licence for a 2i-ton vehicle, was allowed.
Mr. Ian Macaulay, for the appellant, said that Mr. Draper took over, in 1926, the business of coal merchant and haulier. In 1935 he sold the Coal merchant's business to Mr. E. Fernley, of Skeimersdale, for £9. The appellant agreed to give the purchaser any local transport work which he could not do, or to recommend him.
The sale was effected verbally and apparently the Licensing Authority was under, the impression that Mr. Draper had sold his whole business, ,which, in fact, was not so. Under this misapprehension, the Authority refused Mr. Draper's application for an -A licence.
Mr. Rowand Harker, IC.C., chairman, remarked that Mr. Draper's application was made after the appointed day for daithed tonnage. He added that there had recently been a number of cases in which Licensing Authorities had treated late applications as applications for claimed tonnage. Mr. Draper gave, as his reason, ignorance of the law.
After, a lengthy argument, the Tribunal made an order by consent for an A licence to be-granted for the claimed vehicle. No order was made as to costs. Mr. Harker commended the " very proper attitude" adopted by the objector, the L.M.S. Railway Co.