Haulier Charged "For Second
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Time" on Weight Counts•
FROM N. H. THSLEY
DESPITE the fact that the only eye-witness to a series of alleged offences—a police constable—considered that vehicles operated by Siddle C. Cook, Ltd., of Consett, Co. Durham, were tractors and trailers, nevertheless the Northern Licensing Authority, acting outside his own traffic area, instigated charges against the company for illegally operating two articulated vehicles at weights above the permitted maximum.
Knaresborough (Yorkshire) magistrates last week were asked by Mr. B. G. Montgomery, prosecuting on behalf of the Licensing Authority, to find that two vehicles, in January and February, were being operated as articulated vehicles within the meaning of the Construction and Use Regulations.
Four months previously, in April, the same bench of magistrates were asked by the prosecution to find that, on the same dates and carrying the same loads, the vehicles were in fact operating as tractors and trailers and were not carrying the requisite attendants. The magistrates on that occasion dismissed the charges.
Burden of Proof Last week, after the company had pleaded not guilty to the three charges against them, Mr. Montgomery told the Justices that on January 17 and February 24 a vehicle owned by the company was found to have been carrying more than the regulations allowed. A third charge involved another vehicle which, . on February 22. was also found to be overloaded. The prosecution had to establish beyond any doubt that the vehicles were articulated and were in excess of 32 tons.
Two witnesses were called from firms who had loaded the vehicles, both of whom told Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw. for the defendant company. that in each case the loads were mathematically calculated—there were no weighbridges big enough to take the vehicles.
Not Weighed P.C. G. Chapman told the court that he did not have the vehicles weighed at the time they were stopped. On each occasion there were no employees of the company with the vehicle except the drivers. From his knowledge of the law, he expected to see one attendant with each vehicle.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wardlaw, he agreed that the police had given evidence about precisely the same two vehicles last April. Evidence had then been given that the vehicles were operating as tractors and trailers.
Mr. Wardlaw: "Do you still consider that the vehicles were tractors and trailers?" Answer: " I do."
Further questioned by Mr. Montgomery, P.C. Chapman agreed that the magistrates had dismissed the case last April because the company contended that the vehicles were articulated, the evidence being to the effect that the load was in some way superimposed on the tractor portion.
Mr. Montgomery: " But your opinion is that the magistrates were wrong on that occasion?" P.C. Chapman agreed.
Mr. P. C. Cooper, a Northern area traffic examiner, told the court that the vehicles had been declared as articulated in the original application forms.
He agreed with Mr. Wardlaw that he was a "little off my beat" in the Yorkshire area. He had never to his knowledge known a Licensing Authority prosecute in the area of another Authority before. He had " no comment" to make with regard to this. He agreed that it depended on the manner in which the tractor portion of the unit was coupled up as to whether a vehicle was articulated or not. This could only be decided at the time by an examination of the vehicle.
Defence Submission Submitting that there was no case to answer, Mr. Wardlaw said that he did not suppose that the magistrates had ever had quite such a strange experience as this before. In April they had dealt with three charges relating to the same vehicles carrying the same loads. At that time the prosecution said that the company had been operating tractors and trailers. If that were so, then they were fully authorized to carry up to a maximum weight of 32 tons. Although he had invited the magistrates to find the company guilty so that the matter could be argued, they had dismissed the charges.
Now, surprisingly, the charges had "reared their respective heads" again and they had the unique experience qf the Northern Licensing Authority prosecuting in another Authority's area. It would be difficult now for the magistrates to have to eat their own words.
Perhaps there was a reason for the present prosecutions being brought, but it was significant to observe that the first of the charges was only within three days of being out of time. The company had already been before the court upon the very same issues, and here they were again with the same charges "put round in another form."
After considering the matter for a short while, the magistrates found that the defendants had a case to answer. Mr. Wardlaw declined to call any witnesses. Judgment will he given in six weeks' time.
NEW OFFICES FOR D.S.I.R.
THE headquarters of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research have been moved to State House, High Holborn, London, W.C.1 (telephone: Chancery 1262).