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 
A uthority Refuses
Page 67
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
to Decide Issue
I N order that the legal question, whether the railways have, under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, the right to object to Section II (3) (b) cases, might be carried, if necessary, to the House of Lords, Mr. Henry Backhouse (C.M.U.A. solicitor) declined to proceed with a case in Manchester, last week. The application was formally refused.
Mr. Ewert Barrett, the applicant, concurred in this course, but admitted later, during the hearing of his application for an extra vehicle, that if successful in securing the additional facility, he would not proceed with the transfer application. Mr. Barrett said he traded as the Lancashire Transport Co., Radcliffe, and ran a daily door-todoor service between the Manchester and Birmingham districts.
Mr. Backhouse, during the hearing of the application of Mr. Barratt for the transfer to him of a motor vehicle purchased with a business, objected to his client being cross-examined by Mr. P. Kershaw; for the L.M.S; Railway Co. He quoted recent findings of the Appeal Tribunal and contended that the railway representatives were not entitled to attend the inquiry as objectors, and could be heard only as persons likely to be able to make representations that would assist the Licensing Authority.
Sir William ,Hart, Deputy Licensing Authority, thought the point was one which he should not be called upon to decide. There was no need for him to say whether he heard witnesses as statutory objectors, or as persons likely to assist him.
Mr. Backhouse : "Surely you must decide whether they have a right to be here, or whether they are here by your courtesy. I am entitled to know, at this stage, whether I am dealing with an adversary here by right, or here by your request. It makes a great deal of difference in the matter of appeal."
Sir William declined to decide the issue. Mr. Backhouse advised his client to take no further part in the inquiry. Mr. Barratt concurred.
On the application by Mr. Barrett fax an additional vehicle on his own licence, because of increased business, Sir William deferred his decision.