Dent's Transport Lose Important Appeal
Page 56
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AT Durham Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee last week Dent's Transport (Spennymoor), Ltd., of Tudhoe Colliery. County Durham, were unsuccessful in
their appeal against convictions of Operating a vehicle without a licence. The firm are soon to appear before the Northern Area Licensing Authority to show cause why their licence should not be revoked or suspended.
Mr. R. A. Percy, for the tespondentS, said that the company were convicted on July 26 (The Commercial Motor, August 5) of unlawfully using vehicle 773J11N for the carriage of goods for hire or reward otherwise than under a licence on March 16, 1960.
In February, vehicle DGR964, which was specified on their A licence, required some extensive repairs and was taken off the road ostensibly for the whole of February and March, coming back into • service on March 29. Dent's applied for a temporary substitution licence in respect of a vehicle 77311-IN.
Wrong Vehicle?.
The prosecution's case was that on the day in question vehicle DGR964 was being used on its normal duties "far away in Monmouthshire." This was a deliberate act by Dent's to run, quite illegally, two vehicles under one licence. Mr. Percy added that the wording of the regulations implied that the moment the "main" vehicle was fit for the road. the temporary vehicle "vanished."
Mr, Wilfred Steer, for Dent's, said that the charge concerned the wrong vehicle. His clients had been charged with wrongfully running the Substitute vehicle, but the evidence showed that they had surrendered the identity certificate of .the -original vehicle and were rightfully running the substitute.
Mr. Percy argued that the charge was correct because, once the specified vehicle was running again, the substitute vehicle automatically lapsed.
On the Bridge
Mr. E. A. Childs, a traffic examiner in the South Wales area, told the court that on March 16. he was standing on 'the bridge at Usk, Monmouthshire, making routine vehicle checks. One of the vehicles he checked was vehicle DGR964, which bore Dent's name. It. was loaded and was travelling in the direction of
Pontypool or Newport.
Mr. John Henry Dent, managing director of Dent's, said that hehad identical vehicles With consecutive numbers. He contended that the vehicle seen at Usk was DGR963, and he prddneed log sheets for that vehicle. •
The chairman: "What puzzles rne is that these log sheets look so. glistening and so nice." Mr. Dent replied that he thought cleanliness was next to Godliness.
Mr. Percy said that DGR963 was not authorized during March. It was only authorized from June 17 and DGR964 was only authorized in May.
Dismissing the •appeal, the chairman said that he was satisfied that the traffic examiner had not made a mistake.