AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Cotton Empties . Rates Agreed R ATES have been agreed between the

27th April 1956, Page 54
27th April 1956
Page 54
Page 54, 27th April 1956 — Cotton Empties . Rates Agreed R ATES have been agreed between the
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Federation of Master Cotton Spinners Associations and the Northwestern (Eastern) Area of the Road Haulage Association for the return of cotton empties from places within 50 miles of Oldham. They are as .follows: cases, Is. 4d.; tubes in cases or skips, 2s. 5d.; beams, small Is., large ls. 7-id.; skips, 10d.; bundles •of wrappers, lid.; baskets, 10d.; bags of tubes, 10d.

The area committee have changed the rules of their goods-vehicle licence service. It has been decided to suspend the annual membership fee, but members joining the scheme for the first time will be expected to pay an entrance fee of 10s. 6d. No annual fee will be charged in-the following years.

The scheme will no longer give free legal repres'entation to any objection lodged against newcomers or applications by British Road Services. Any financial or legal support to objectors is now a matter for consideration by the area committee.

WAS FAULTY HALT SIGN INVALID?

WAS a halt sign invalid because there VI' was more than the regulation distance of 6 in. between the letter plate and the surmounting circle? this was argued before Cannock magistrates, last week, when a driver was summoned for disobeying the halt sign at the Beehive cross-roads, Hednesford.

The defending solicitor said that there was more than 6 in. between the plate and circle of the sign. This was agreed by the police, but the local surveyor said that a general regulation of 1940 provided that signs should not be invalidated by variations in measurement. :Ile defending solicitor stated that this regulation was revoked by general directions of 1950.

For the police, it was argued that the defence should fail because commonlaw doctrine was that the law took no account of trifles.

The tnagistrateS decided that the error in the measurement of the sign, a matter of in., was so slight that the sign remained lawful. Defendant was tined 10s., with £5 5s. costs.


comments powered by Disqus