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 
"False Traffic" Accusations on Appeal
Page 69
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Appeal Tribunal met at Aber deen to hear an appeal by Messrs. Elrick and Hutcheon, hauliers, Aberdeen, against a decision of Mr. Henry Riches (Northern Scottish Licensing Authority) refusing an additional vehicle of 2i tons unladen weight for their Aberdeen-Glasgow service.
Mr. Connochie, for the applicants, said that Mr. Riches had gone wrong in his calculations in applying to the case the Hawker formula. He had included local tonnage, whereas trunk-service tonnage alone should have counted. Since 1935, the average per ton unladen weight had, in this case, been reduced, but the average carried per journey had increased. There had been a change in the character of the running of the business, five journeys a week being done in 1934 and 1935, whilst in 1936 they did partly three and partly five, and in 1937 only three journeys per week. The change was made because previously there was no chance to maintain the vehicles and because customers complained that the lorries were not properly washed, especially after carrying fish. If the extra vehicle were granted they would not revert to five journeys per week.
Mr. Connochie next submitted more figures, which, he contended, showed the need for an additional vehicle. In 1934, appellants paid £700 tor the hire of vehicles and for the year ended March, 1937, £L319 was paid. All that the apellants wanted, he said, was to put on their trunk service the vehicle of Alexander Hutcheon which was formerly hired by them. The fact that a vehicle had been hired every day for six months, he said, was proof of need.
Mr. Connochie stated that one of the factors in the case was the difficulty of hiring vehicles for long-distance ser vices, this being a point which the Tribunal should take into account.
On behalf of the L.M.S. Railway. Mr. W. Weir said that the appellants had to prove three points. First, that there had been an increase in their business; this they had proved. Secondly, increases in customers. No evidence, he said, had been led on this point, neither had the third point, regarding inconvenience to customers, been proved. The Authority, in giving his decision, had held that there were no special circumstances.
Concerning hiring, Mr. Weir submitted that the mere fact that a vehicle had been hired for six months was not proof that it was required for a particular haulier. Appellants had got extra vehicles only through acquiring busi nesses. Never had they obtained a single vehicle from the Licensing Authority by proving need. Mr. Alexander Hutcheon was in business on his own account and Messrs. Elrick and Hutcheon were using his lorry for their business and using it outside the terms of the licence granted to the normal user. He suggested that the tonnage carried by Messrs. Elrick and Hutcheon in Mr. Alexander Hutcheon's vehicle was false traffic. Appellants had, he said, put the vehicle on their service, got the traffic for it, and had then come along and sought to justify the vehicle. They .had not gone to the Authority for additional vehicles. By acquiring and purchasing the business of Messrs. Leslie and Macdonald they had been enabled to carry out the change.
For the L.N.E.R., Mr. T. Gibson said that increased traffic was the principal point to be considered by the Authority, and that there had been no fish-traffic increase in the business of appellant's customers. Judgment was reserved.