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
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244 
Booth's Northern Application
Page 58
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A HAULAGE firm director told the the .1-1 Northern Licensing Authority at Durham on Monday that the objections to an application by his company were "frivolous ". Mr. H. L. Walker, a director of Arthur T. Booth (Manchester) Ltd., Middlesbrough, said the objectors were wasting a lot of time and money. The L.A. reserved his decision.
Arthur T. Booth was applying for an A licence in respect of two artics. British Railways, British Road Services and a number of private hauliers objected. Mr. Walker said he wished to place on record that Mr. William Tulip had agreed to become secretary to the firm. Mr. Tulip had resigned as a director after he had been criticized when the affairs of Arthur T. Booth had been investigated. The North Western L.A. had revoked the firrn's licence. Mr. Walker said that Mr. Tulip had been more sinned against than sinner.
In evidence, Mr. Tulip said that some of the objectors had already made appli cation for similar licences. Numerous orders had been lost because of the shortage of long-length trailers, he said. If the application were granted, the company would carry long-length steel.
Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, on behalf of some of the objectors, submitted that the application must fail, as a prima facie case of need had not been established. The user of the company had never included the word " steel ". But steel had been carried under the term "engineering goods ".