1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172 
Container Appeal Dismissed
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A 40-FT.-LONG articulated vehicle, I–I bearing a cattle container, contravened the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1955, when it was driven along the M6 motorway, the Queen's Bench Divisional Court decided last Friday. The container, the court ruled, was part of the vehicle and not part of the load.
The court dismissed, with costs, an appeal by Fellside Transport, Ltd., of Lazonby, Cumberland, the vehicle owners, and its driver, Mr. R. E. Harrison, against their conviction by South Lonsdale and Hornby magistrates, at Lancaster, on September 20, 1961: The company had been fined £5, with £6 9s. costs, and Harrison £1.
The Lord Chief Justice (Lord Parker) said that although the container was movable, it was kept on the lorry and used, day in and day out, for carrying livestock.
Under the regulations, the length of an articulated vehicle should not exceed 35 ft., but there was a proviso in Regulation 6 (1) (11) that this should not apply in the case of an -articulated vehicle constructed and normally used for the conveyance of indivisible loads of an exceptional length.
The appellants contended that the vehicle was constructed and normally
used for the conveyance of the container and its cattle load. The justices found that it was not so constructed, 4ut had been habitually used for the conveyance of livestock.
His Lordship could see no answer to that, as a question of fact. It was the answer any mart, lawyer or layman, 'would give on looking at the vehicle, as it was in 'ordinary use. It was conveying cattle, and cattle were not indivisible loads, at all. The magistrates had come to the only possible ,cnnelusion.
. Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice Fenton Atkinson concurred. • COVENTRY COACH TAKE-OVER
TW0 of the oldest coach Concerns in Coventry . have merged, With the taking over of Bunty Motorways, Ltd., by Red House Motor Services, Ltd. Only the Coventry, and not the Nuneaton, operations of Bunty are involved in the acquisition.