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 
Authority Rebukes G.W.R.
Page 75
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
CR1T1C1SM by both the Western Licensing Authority and the applicant's solicitor of the Great Western Railway Co.'s action in objecting to the renewal of the licence of a longestablished furniture remover was made at a sitting last week. Mr. F. J. Thorn, 29, Alfred Road, Ford, sought a B licence to carry general goods within 20 miles of Plymouth, and to transport furniture and household goods for unlimited distances, so long as the loads were picked up or deposited within 10 miles of Plymouth.
Mr. W. E. J. Major, for the applicant, said that Mr. Thorn, who had been established for 40 years, felt ,a sense of grievance at the iailway's opposition. When a similar application, which was granted, was made last year, he faced the opposition of the -Road Haulage Association and the
Great Western Railway Co. The latter intended to oppose future 'applications unless the extent of the licence were cut down, and Mr. Thorn agreed to certain conditions which the company suggested.
The R.H.A. had abided by its bargain and had not opposed the present application, but the G.W.R. sought to limit still further Mr. Thorn's activities. Mr. J. B. Pine, for the G.W.R., denied that the company was a party to any agreement last year, Mr. Major retorted that he had proof of itsparticipation in the agreement.
The Authority, in granting the application, agreed with Mr. Major, saying that it did seem a pity that the applicant had had to come to court when really, on the face of it, there seemed to be very little ground for the objection,