Cartage Charge by C-licensee Legal
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A CARTAGE charge made by a CZns licensee for a delivery to a London wharf was legal. This was the outcome of a case before the Queen's Bench Divisional Court last week. Mr. Allen James Carpenter, an inspector of the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, appealed against it decision of the Tower Bridge stipendiary magistrates last June.
The magistrates had dismissed an information preferred by Mr. Carpenter against W. Lusty and Sons, Ltd., Anchor Wharf. Watts Grove, Poplar_ packers and shippers' forwarding agents, that in October, 1955, at Tooley Street. Southwark, the company had carried goods for hire or reward in a C-licence vehicle.
The magistrate found that the vehicle was being used to deliver 36 bales of clothing and II chests of shoes on behalf of Dunbar Wharf, Ltd., to Fennings Wharf. Treatment of the goods by Lusty included puffin the clothes into a power baling press and securing the chests of shoes with steel hoops. Lusty were paid £68 13s. by Dunbar Wharf, £4 18s. being separately charged for cartage.
Mr. R. Winn, for Mr. Carpenter, said that Section '1(5) of the 1933 Act provided that delivery or collection of goods subject to a process or treatment did not constitute carriage for hire or reward, but when an additional rate was charged for transport the appropriate licence was required.
Lord Goddard. Lord Chief Justice, said that Lusty had subjected the goods to a process or treatment, and in his view the case was that of a company using a vehicle for the delivery of goods in the course of ordinary business. Mr. Justice Cassels and Mr. Justice Lynskey agreed that the appeal failed.
NO RETURN LOADS FOR MARTELLS
THE Metropolitan Licensing Author' ity last week rejected an application by Martells of Sutton, Ltd., Sutton, to carry general goods as return loads after vehicles had travelled outwards on removals work, during the fuelrationing period. The company's B licence covers six vehicles for removals and associated work.
The first part of the hearing (The Commercial Motor, January 11) was adjourned so that evidence of demand could be produced. Last week Mr. G. M. Steele, director, submitted letters of support, mainly from hauliers, and suggested that his company could bring return loads from places as far away. as Newcastle upon Tyne, Liverpool and Bristol. No witnesses were produced. Mr. Steele said that the company's fuel ration was a third of normal requirements. Mr. A. J. F. Wrottesley, for the British Transport Commission, who objected, replied that for this reason it might be advisable not to seek extra work.