Witness ?
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
jection was not in the statutory form. Therefore, there were grounds for putting in fresh evidence.
The chairman, Mr. Rowand Harker, K.C., commented that Mr. Foster's letter'did not appear to raise any. point that an objector was entitled to raise.
The Tribunal decided that Mr. Foster could not be regarded as an objector. It was suggested that the Authority had acted wrongly in allowing an objection to be heard, but it appeared that Mr. Foster being present be had been called as a witness by Mr. 'N. Chamberlain, the Authority, on his own account.
Regarding the Enston decision, Mr. Hindle agreed with the chairman that the case was only in respect of an A licence. Considerations that must be taken into account with an A licence need not be taken into account, to the same extent, with a B licence. It was desirable that the sphere of specialized work, such as furniture removal, should be a wide one.
Referring to Petrie's case, the chairman said that the Tribunal had never decided that traders sh,Ald not choose the form of transport which they preferred.
Mr. Smylie submitted that the lack of evidence for the application at the hearing all pointed to Mr. Thornley being a newcomer, hoping to gain business for his friends. The Enston decision applied in this case where it was proposed to carry furniture anywhere.
On Wednesday, the appeal was dismissed. The chairman said that the Licensing Authority took the view that the applicant should have sufficient evidence to prove that the work could not be carried out by other facilities, which were the same as in the basic year. There were many. cases of applications for A licences to which the decision in the Enston case was not applicable. So far as this licence was concerned, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the Enston decision did apply, but this fact must not be taken as meaning that the Easton deCiSi011 would apply to all B-licence applications.
The Tribunal called attention to the answers given by Mr. Thornley to Mr. Chamberlain at the original hearing. These were to the effect that the vehicle had been purchased in May, 1933. to give employment to his sons. If the licence were granted, other people might well find themselves out of employment.
There was to order as to costs.