- 24ourt Ruling on Farm Products k HAULIER successfully appealed to
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
-1 the King's Bench Divisional Court, St Friday, against a decision of the ingston-upon-Hull Stipendiary Magisate that bundles of animal skins irried from a ship at Hull Docks to tannery at Leeds were commercial, "cl not agricultural, products.
Mr. H. C. Scott, for the appellant, lr. Irwin Scarr, Green View Farm, rayton, Selby, Yorks, said that Mr. ..arr had been fined £2 for carrying rods more than 25 miles from his 'crating centre, in contravention of s licence.
Mr. Scarr held a permit which Aided him to operate in Yorkshire id Lancashire if he were using his rry for the purpose, among other ings, of carrying agricultural proicts. The case turned upon whether the non-processed hides concerned come within the permit.
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard, said that the permit gave Mr. Scarr a "pretty wide choice" in the goods he might carry and it was conceded that, if these were the hides of animals killed or reared in this country, they would be agricultural products.
It was also clear that the permit enabled Mr. Scarr to carry goods brought here from foreign countries— oil and building plant—and it was not confined to goods that were products of this country. It seemed to him that the hides were agricultural products in just the same way as wheat.
Mr. Justice Oliver and Mr. Justice Cassels agreed, and the appeal was allowed, with costs.'