Two Hauliers Fined : Contract-A Breach
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TWO Batley hauliers, Fred Chappell, Ltd., Station Road, and Messrs. F. Richardson, Soothill, were fined a total of £53, with £10 10s. costs, at Batley last week. Fred Chappell, Ltd., were fined £3 on each of 11 charges of wrongfully using a contract-A licence. and Messrs. Richardson £3 each on four similar charges. The company were also fined £2 each on four charges of aiding and abetting Messrs. Richardson, and both defendants were ordered to pay £5 5s. advocates' costs.
Mr. E. Wurzal. prosecuting for the Yorkshire Licensing Authority, said that Fred Chappell, Ltd., were 'coal dealers and hauliers and got some of their coal from Old Roundwood Colliery, near Wakefield. They also carried coal for Smith Parkinson and Cole, Ltd., Bradford. Messrs. Richardson could carry coal only for Fred Chappell, Ltd., but their vehicle went to Old Roundwood Colliery and carried coal for Smith Parkinson and Cole, Ltd.
Both defendants were holders of contract-A licences, which had beenissued at their own request for particular contracts and had been wrongly used, said Mr. Wurzal.
Mr. N. M. Jordon, for the two defendants, pleaded guilty and told the magistrates that Fred Chappell, Ltd., had been in business for 60 years. Since the 1933 Act, they had had no conviction of any description.
At the time of the offences a director of the company, who was also traffic manager, was ill. There was no question of any other haulier being denied a job. In the case of Messrs. Richardson, they had relied on their driver, who went with Chappell's fleet in the normal way, and as far as they were aware everything was in order.
HULL FINED FOR INEFFICIENT BUS BRAKES
AFINE of £10 was imposed upon Hull Transport Department last week for using a bus with inefficient brakes, and the driver was fined £3. Both pleaded not guilty. Prosecuting, Mr. J. R. Croft said that the case arose out of an accident in which a small girl was killed.
J. W. Dent, chief engineering assistant of the department, described their maintenance system which, he said, involved constant checking of springs, tyres and brakes. The driver said that he did not notice anything wrong with the brakes.
Mr. G. H. Pulfrey, general manager, stated that he thought 40-per-cent. efficiency for the foot brake and 20 per cent. for the hand brake were acceptable standards. Mr. K. Campbell, defending, said that the brakes of the vehicle might not have been right up to examination standards, but did not admit that they were unsafe.
An appeal is to be considered.