Mr. Hanlon Serves Notice on Siddle C. Cook
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN unexpected development took place when the hearing was completed at Newcastle upon Tyne last Monday of applications by Siddle C. Cook and Co., Ltd., of Consett, Co. Durham.
After announcing that he would give his decision in the afternoon,the Northern Licensing Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, served notice on the applicants of their previous convictions in magistrates' courts under section 174 sub-section 4(b) of the 1960 Act, and said he proposed, in considering their applications, to take into account their previous conduct as carriers of goods.
A decision was deferred.
For the applicants, Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw said the company had applied for two trailers (50 tons and 40 tons) to be specified on an ordinary A licence after expiration of a special A licence for two trailers normally used for carrying plant and earth-moving equipment and other materials of exceptional weight and dimensions to and from all parts of Britain. The inquiry into this application had been concluded and the decision was awaited.
Mr. Wardlaw said that the second application was for the variation of an A licence by the addition of a tractor vehicle of 121 tons and two steerable dollys of about 10 tons each, to be acquired. The application was part heard and was last before the Authority on March 26. The company were also seeking renewal of A licences in respect of 22 articulated vehicles, seven tractors, six draw-bar trailers and two &flys. The renewal application was subject to the variation but there was no objection to the renewal without modification, he added.
Objectors included British Railways and Pickfords.
Mr. Hanlon said there had been considerable delay over the renewal of the special A licence owing to matters which arose at a public inquiry in May, 1961. The company had been prosecuted at Knaresborough magistrates' court, Yorkshire, by the enforcement department of the Traffic Area.
Some time was spent on matters arising out of the question of the use of the vehicles in the area and the subsequent conviction of the applicants.
He considered the time to be relevant because it was the intention of the Act that Licensing Authorities should be able to bring order to the haulage industry. Mr. Hanlon added: "It is my duty to ensure that hauliers do not make deliberate evasions and deliberate submissions in different courts in different parts of the country which are not true."
Ile recalled that small penalties were inflicted by the justices in some courts because of false statements made to them. These matters were relevant under section 174 of the 1960 Act.
Mr. Hanlon continued: "My attention has been directed by two public authorities who are not hauliers—a fact I should like to make quite clear—and whose names I am not bound to disclose, to certain matters connected with this company. I must do my duty under the Act and 1 am forced very reluctantly to act in this case. This company has apparently had great respect for the licensing system in the past and until the Knareshorough conviction had attempted to conduct its affairs according to the regulations."
Mr. Hanlon then handed a sheaf of documents to Mr. Campbell Wardlaw "with the greatest reluctance" and said the objectors were entitled to know what they were—a list of previous convictions. The application was then adjourned.