Steel Makers Would Not Give Evidence
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE attitude of certain large companies, who showed discourtesy to the Licensing Authorities by refusing to send witnesses to court to testify to the need for a,dditional transport, was criticized at Wrexham, last week, when Mr. R. M. Shawcross, Mold, sought a modification of normal user for a onevehicle A licence to carry steel for John Summers, Ltd., Shotton.
Mr. Shawcross, in evidence, said that the carriage of coal, which was a large proportion of the work on the original user, had now ceased and been replaced by the carriage of steel for Summers, amounting to approximately 40 per cent. of his total work. The application was previously adjourned because there was no evidence from the customer.
Sommers would not send a witness, but they had sent a 'letter indicating that a grant would in no way affect the objectors, British Railways and British Road Services.
Mr. G. H. P. Beames, for the British Transport Commission, said they could not understand the attitude of large companies who would not send witnesses. Their need could not be as great as was made out. In this case, Summers were substantial customers of both the objectors and there was a specific assurance that they would not suffer. The objection would be withdrawn.
Granting the application, the South Wales Licensing Authority, Mr. Idris Owen, deputizing for the North Western Authority, said that if the objection had been maintained he would have required much more information as to need. He believed firmly that normal user must mean something. If it bore no relation to facts, the licensing system would become of little value.