Varied Issues in Four Appeals
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FOUR appeals were heard, last week, by the Appeal Tribunal, at York. In one case, the application was referred hack to the Licensing Authority, and decisions on the other appeals were reserved.
Application Referred Back.
A decision to refer the application back to the Yorkshire Licensing Authority for a further hearing was reached in the appeal of the L.N.E. Railway Co., against the decision to grant an A licence to Messrs. Butler and Marshall Transport Services, Hull. The Tribunal reached the conclusion that the investigations into the case made by the Licensing Authority were unsatisfactory.
Are Letters Useful Evidence?
In the appeal. of the L.N.E. Railway Co., against the Yorkshire Deputy Licensing Authority's decision to vary an A licence granted to Mr. Clive Allen, of Hull, allowing him to acquire an additional vehicle under a short-term licence, it was said that it had been the practice of the Yorkshire Licensing Authority to accept letters as evidence. Mr, Rowand Harker, K.C., chairman of the Tribunal, said that this was not the practice in all areas.
Mr. F. K. Glazebrook, for the respondent, contended that Mr. Allen's traffic was not abstracted from other transport services, and the necessity of the new machine was caused by an increase in the timber-distributing trade in Hull.
Commenting on the question of accepting letters as evidence, the chairman suggested that it should not be difficult to get one representative person from Hull Chamber of Commerce to give evidence, with regard to the trade generally. Such evidence would. he said, be of much greater value than any number of letters.
The Tribunal reserved its decision.
Did Not Claim Maximum Tonnage.
A joint appeal by the L.M.S. and L.N.E. Railway Companies against the decision of the Yorkshire Licensing Authority to grant a B licence for an additional 20-cwt. vehicle to Mr. P. Roberts, of Barnsley, was heard. On behalf of the railways, Mr. B. de H. Pereira submitted that, in granting the licence, the Authority misdirected himself on the evidence submitted.
On behalf of the respondent, it was
contended that there would be no interference with the status quo if the grant stood, as Mr. Roberts had not claimed all the tonnage to which he was entitled. Decision was reserved.
Special Vehicle Required.
The refusal of the Yorkshire Licensing Authority to grant Messrs. Bradshaw and Bly, of Sheffield, a variation of an A licence to acquire an additional vehicle, not exceeding 4 tons, was the subject of another appeal.
Mr. A. B. Thorneloe, for the appellant, stated that his clients were not able to hire a vehicle which would meet their particular requirements. and evidence showed that there had been a
44 P e r-cent. increase in the firm's busi
ness. B. fie H. Pereira, for the L.M.S. and L.N.E. Railway Companies, commented on the figures of increased turnover, and said that they applied to only four months. He also submitted that there was no evidence to indicate how much was general haulage. He pointed out that the grounds for the refusal were that insufficient evidence had been submitted to justify Ow acquisition of so large a. machine.
Decision was reserved. I.