Two More Haulage Appeals Heard
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THAT a licence was granted to an I ex-Serviceman o n sentimental grounds was the case for the appellants at a hearing before the Appeal Tribunal last week. The respondent was Mr. A. E. Wright, of Bromfield, Shropshire, who, before the war, acted as a cattle auctioneer's assistant and transport canvasser in the chief cattle markets of the West Midlands. During hostilities he served in the Army and was for three years a prisoner-of-war.
When he returned to civilian life he decided to go into the cattle transport business himself, and successfully applied for a B licence to carry livestock within a radius of 80 miles of Bromfield.
" Sentimental " Grant
Four other hauliers objected to the granting of this licence by the West Midland Deputy Licensing Authority, and appealed. Mr. David Karmel, for one of the appellants, submitted that the. licence appeared to have been granted mainly on sentimental grounds, in view of Mr. Wright's military service and imprisonment. Although cattle could not be taken away sufficiently quickly from the markets, this was chiefly" because of disruption of railway facilities, the railways, as a rule, handling the greater part of livestock traffic.
Mr. Karmel stated that the cattle markets took place in September and October, and these were the two peak months for livestock hauliers. During the rest of the year there was a danger that Mr. Wright would take away from the four appellants some of the little traffic that there might be.
Mr. Kenneth Mynett, for Mr. Wright, replied that in the summingup of the application by the Deputy Licensing Authority, at the original hearing, no reference was made to the suggestion that the respondent's being an ex-Serviceman had persuaded him to grant the licence. The licence was granted, submitted Mr. Mynett, solely on grounds of proved need.
He quoted the evidence of a witness at the hearing who was an inspector of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. According to him, the animals suffered from having to remain in the markets. Often some animals remained for five or six days before transport was available to take them away. Serious deterioration of cattle, particularly with the smaller animals, occurred because of the shortage Of facilities for haulage.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the need for transport existed in the peak . months of the year, and the appeal was dismissed. " ' • The second appeal Was by Messrs. O. P. and D. B. Morgan against a decision of the West Midland Deputy Licensing. Authority. In 1939, Messrs. Morgan, of Tenbury. Wells, Wares, ran two vehicles under A licences on a 35-mile radius and two on B licences on a 40-mile radius. These two Blicence vehicles were restricted to milk haulage and the A-licence vehicles were for general goods.
About May, 1946, a Defence Permit was granted for a third vehicle, which was restricted to carrying milk only for the Milk Marketing Board. When the licences came up for renewal, Messrs. Morgan asked that this third vehicle should carry general goods and that the other vehicles be on the same terms as before.
Restricted to M.M.B.
The Deputy Licensing Authority granted the renewal of the A licences, but the three B-licensed lorries were all restricted to the carriage of milk for the Milk Marketing Board. Messrs. Morgan appealed against this decision and suggested to the Tribunal that the terms for the three B-licensed lorries be one for general goods, one for milk generally, and One for the carrying of Milk for the Milk Marketing Board, all being restricted to a 35-mile radius.
The case for the respondents appeared to be based on u misunderstanding, and the Tribunal granted Messrs. Morgan their modified requirements.