RAILWAYS WANTED TO KNOW TOO MUCH.
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A railway attempt to obtain intimate information, from an applicant haulier, led to an amusing but pointed interlude during the hearing of a case before the Northern Licensing Authority (Sir John Maxwell), at Northallerton, on Monday. The applicant, Mr. J. Maude, of Newsbam, who applied for a renewal of his 13 licence for one vehicle, with a variation permitting him to substitute an unladen weight of 3 tons for 1i tons, said this would enable him to carry three more cattle or 20 more sheep per journey.
Asked by Mr, E. A. Boothroyd (for the L.N.E.R,) why he wanted to increase the carrying capacity, Mr. Maude replied: " Because the farmers want me to, and I want to compete against you. There is a difference between 4s. 6d. a head for cattle and is. 6d."
Mr. Boothroyd: "Can you let us have the names of the farmers who want to engage you, and the cattle and sheep carried in the past two years?
Mr. Maude: "Let you have the names? Oh, no."
Sir John Maxwell: " Will you let me have the figures of cattle and sheep you have carried during the past two years, and the list of your customers who want you to carry for them? "
Mr. Maude: " I will, Sir John, if the railway company does not get them." Amidst laughter. Sir John Maxwell said " I will see it does not get them." The Authority reserved his decision.
Weight of Container Must Count.
Judgment in a test case regarding the use of containers on lorries, for the conveyance of livestock, was given in Dundee Sheriff Court, last week, by Sheriff Malcolm. Mr, George Dow Smith, Braeknowe, Invergowrie, was charged with having, on March -14, after taking out a licence for a lorry, used it in an altered condition by placing a container on it, without pay 131S ing the higher rate of licence duty applicable. The lorry weighed 59 cwt. ani, with the container, 67 cwt.
Sheriff Malcolm said that a similar case, tried in the High Court of Justiciary in 1936, resulted in the decision that the container should not be included. Since then, however, there had been additional legislation in the 1937 Finance Act, where it was laid down that the weight of the container must be counted in. The higher rate of duty was, therefore, applicable, being £.50 instead of £30.
In view of this being a test case, no penalty was asked by the prosecution and accused was, therefore, dismissed with an admonition. HOW RAILWAYS GET THEIR " BAIT,"
A suggestion that turnover figures put in by carriers were used by the railway companies as " bait for fishing expeditions," was made by Mr. H. Backhouse, solicitor for the C.M.U./... at a recent inquiry before Sir William Hart, North Western Deputy Licensing Authority, in Manchester. Mr. P. Kershaw, for the railway companies. had objected , to certain figures not being put in, 'whenan application for a renewal was heard,
Mr. Backhouse said he did not want to produce the figures unless it was necessary, as they were " simply handed over to the railway company for its information." Mr. Kershaw said that in his submission an applicant did not prove his application without putting in such figures. Mr. Backhouse then intimated that if the Licensing Authority thought they should go in, he was prepared to put them in. The figures were put in, and a copy was given to the railway companies. Mr. Backhouse then asked that they should not be copied and Mr. Kershaw objected, saying " We have to consider sometimes the question of appeal."
Mr. Backhouse: " Surely the purpose of handing the figures in is solely for cross-examination. They should be used for that purpose and then returned. We want to avoid these renewals becoming pure 'fishing expeditions '." The figures were returned to Mr. Backhouse.