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
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256 
No C. and D. Van for Scottish Work
Page 148
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
QPERATION for subsidiary cornpanics did not absolve an applicant from meeting the full requirements of normal procedure, said Mr. W. F. Quin, Scottish Licensing Authority, when he refused an application by N.M.U. (1953), Ltd., at Glasgow last week.
The Munro appeal, he said, clearly stated the evidence required for additions to a fleet, or in application for an A licence for collection and delivery work in connection with trunk services, N.M.U. had not produced such evidence.
The company sought an A licence for a vehicle of 3 tons for collection and delivery work within 60 miles of base. Mr. P. Kenny, for N.M.U., said that the vehicle was required for work performed by the company as a subsidiary Rowntree and Co., Ltd., and the associates, Gray, Dunn, Ltd., and W. at M. Duncan, Ltd.
The applicants operated a tru delivery service from Birmingha London, Liverpool and York into t Glasgow area.
Periodic delays to the trunk vehicle a its difficulty in making multiple drops h encouraged N.M.U. to seek a supp mentary collection and delivery van. would undertake only existing work a would not abstract work from la ha uliers.
For the objectors, Mr. R. Macken claimed that the traffic from Birmingh and Liverpool was essentially competiti general work.