B Licences for Railways?
Page 44
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ASUBMISSION which, had it been upheld, would have created considerable confusion in the granting of licences to railway companies all over the country, Was made before Sir Henry Piggott, the South-Eastern Licensing Authority, in London, on Monday. Objections were lodged by the Sussex Carriers Association, Brighton, and three individual mema hers to the granting of licences to the Southern Railway Co. The applications concerned the substitution of mechanical horses in Worthing and Aldershot, and the acquisition of an additional 1-ton van to carry parcels in Hastings and district. .
Mr. A. Guilmant and Mr. E. L. Reif, secretary of the Association, appeared for the objectors. It was submitted that the carriage of goods by the railways was ancillary to the transport of passengers, the two being separate businesses, and, therefore, application should have been made for B licences.
A. railway witness admitted that, in an emergency, a vehicle might be moved from one area to another. • Mr. Reif submitted that the Authority' could grant a licence only in the terms applied for and as, for example, application had been made for the use of' the 1-ton van in Hastings, St. Leonards and certain other points, a condition, should be imposed upon the licence.. restricting operation in this manner.
Mr. B. de H. Periera, for the Southern Railway Co., strongly protested against the objection by the Association, which, he said, did not comply with the regulations. There was. no note of the names of the actual objectors and their signatures were not. appended. This protest was upheld.Mr. Periera also stated that the railways had never made any of the contentions which Mr. Relf had attributed
to them.
Sir Henry Piggott declared that aLicensing Authority could not, in ar.ycircumstance, force a B licence upon a person who sought an A licence and who was entitled to it. He had suggested that an application for a B licence should be made only in cases where there was doubt as to whether an applicant for an A licence carried on some other business, and in certain other instances.
In Sir Henry's opinion, in the Case of a railway company, a prima facie case was adequately made out when it was shown that all the traffic to dealt with with by the vehicles in question was rail:borne. All three applications were granted.