Rail Offensive on 'Replacement Cases
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I N opposing applications in Yorkshire
for permission to replace Nebkles in possession by new machines giving an increase of up to, say, 16 cwt. in unladen weight, the railway representatives are seeking to treat 'the applications as though they Were for extra vehicles, which should be supported by detailed evidence as to traffic, receipts and so forth.
One of these cases came before Mr. Willoughby Bullock, the new Yorkshire Deputy Licensing Authority, at Leeds, last -week, when he held his first sitting in that capacity. The applicants sought to replace an authorized vehicle by one 15 cwt. heavier.
When, in cross-combination, railway counsel was asking for various details concerning the operation of the existing vehicle, a protest against this line of cross-examination was made by Mr. F. G. Bibbings, secretary of A.R.O. Yorkshire Area, for the applicants. Later, Mr. Bibbings commented upon what he described as the danger of creating a new precedent in connection with such simple applications.
He pointed out that -unless a considerable increase in either imladen weight or carrying capacity was sought in a. replacement application it -had not been the custom of the Yorkshire Licensing Authority to expect applicants to produce a full set of figures concerning traffic and receipts. If such information -were essential, every applicant in a case of this kind would be involved in considerable expense in obtaining a certified return of traffic and receipts, the preparation of which would necessitate the assistance of an accountant. Already, owing to railway opposition, the average number of cases listed for hearing at any York
shire sitting had been reduced from 75 to 32.
Ultimately the hearing was adjourned for further evidence. Mr. Bullock took a similar course in another case, in which the applicant sought permission to replace a vehicle by one 12 cwt. heavier. The applicant, whose case was conducted by Mr. Bibbings, said that the new vehicle's carrying capacity would be ton more than that of the existing machine, that his business had increased by approximately 20 per cent., and that the proposed vehicle would be used solely for present customers.
Railway counsel referred to the absence of figures relating to the suggested increase in the applicant's business, and Mr. Bullock intimated that he would require such figures. The hearing was adjourned.
In opposing another application of a similar kind, in which it was stated that the new vehicle would shave an unladen weight 10 cwt. greater than that of the present unit, and wauld carry 1 ton more, railway counsel suggested an adjournment for the production of further evidence. In this instance, however, the application -was granted forthwith.