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
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216 
Conflict Over Excursion Advertising
Page 146
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
CONFLICTING evidence as to I.-, whether coach excursions had or had not been advertised and operated was heard by the Yorkshire Area Traffic Commissioners last week. Witnesses for the applicants claimed that boards advertising excursions had been displayed, and coaches had operated on the trips. Witnesses for the objectors said they had never seen them.'
The executors of F. H. Doughty, Ltd., of Brimmington,were applying to renew excursion licences starting from Dronfield and Brimmington. Mr. J. Hampton, counsel for the applicants, told the Commissioner's the licences were the residue of the estate of the late Mr. Doughty who had local services in the ,district, together with the two licences for excursions. Chesterfield Corporation held, and had tried to implement, an option to take over the services after Mr. Doughty's death, but had no power to run excursions and tours.
The corporation asked East Midland Motor Services ifthey., were interested in purchasing the excursion and tour, part of the business, but were informed that the company were not interested in isolation." An offer made by Mr. R. Wetton, now an objector, was subsequently withdrawn.
Mr. F. S. Marshall, for Messrs. Booth 832
and Fisher and Messrs. R. Welton and Son, both objectors, called several witnesses to say that, although they, had passed Mr. Doughty's premises regularly, they had never seen -any hoards 'displayed or been aware of any , operation of excursions froini the two places by Mr. Doughty.
Mr. F. D. Fisher, partner in Booth and Fisher, gave evidence that he had applied successfully in 1955 for a licence from Dronfield on the grotind that there were no existing excursions operated from there, a claim which had been made in good faith at the time. Had he known there was one in existence, he would have approached Mr. Doughty to purchase it. He had renewed the. licence with modification in March, 1959.
The hearing was adjourned.
MULTI-PURPOSE DENNIS CHASSIS 'F'ORTY multi-purpose chassis, designed I to accept three different types of body, are included in an order for 55 vehicles placed with Dennis Bros„ Ltd., by the North Thames Gas Board. The bodies will be quickly interchangeable for the delivery of coke in saeks, coke in hulk and_ thecarriage of domestic appliances. The remainder of the order comprises 12 tractor units and three vehicles for carrying coal in bulk,