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 
When is Sand Not Considered A Building Material
Page 48
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE revocation or suspension of the licences of Joseph Kimberley and Sons Ltd., of Newcastle, Staffs, under Section 178 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, was considered at Hanley last week by the West Midland Licensing Authority, Mr. J. Else, and account was taken of the conveyance of sand used for industrial purposes under a B licence. The company was also called upon to answer for a breach of normal user on its A licence, and for a number of prohibition notices and convictions. At an inquiry held on July 14, which had been adjourned, Mr. Else said it became apparent that substantial quantities of industrial sand were being carried for Hinckley Ltd. and Hinckley Silica Sand Ltd. The four vehicles on A licence had a normal user of: "Road and building materials, salt, clay, slag and shale; Yorks. Lanes, Cheshire and Midlands." For Kimberley and Sons, Mr. G. Tinsdill strongly contested any suggestion of breach of normal user or conditions of the B licence, submitting that sand along with gravel had always been associated with "building materials" and his clients had carried the sand as building material. It would bear heavily on a haulier if he had to find out to what use a commodity was to be put by the customer. and he could not control the use to which it was put. Where the phraseology on a licence was in doubt, the haulier should be given the benefit, submitted Mr. Tinsdill. He was concerned with his clients continually raising with him the question: 'What have we been doing wrong?" Mr. Else told Mr. K. Kimberley his ' company must have thought that "sand was a universal term ". The commodity was not specified in either licence and was not being delivered to building sites but to foundries. In his opinion it could not be regarded as building material, but he believed it had been carried in innocence. In defence of the list of prohibitions and convictions between 'June, 1962 and April, 1965, and more than half the fleet of 36 vehicles found defective in May. Mr. Tinsdill pleaded. arduous work on sites and defects developing without warning,
Mr. R. J. Kimberley referred to the be
numr of new vehicles purchased, the rota system for servicing and maintenance, of doubling the sire of the garage, new equipment installed and the employment of seven fitters and one greaser. The LA said a warning had been given by him in 1963 that every haulier must specially look to vehicles engaged on site work. It was now " a picture of building a new stable after his examiners had arrived ". One vehicle on A licence would be taken off for a month, three vehicles on B licence for six weeks and two vehicles on C licence for two months.