What is Proof of Increased Trade?
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Hawker, Ridgewell and Robson appeal decisions were, in tun, called into service during the hearing of an application •by Mr. E. Shoesmith, 34, Miranda Road, Kirkdale; Liverpool, before the North-Western Licensing Authority, at Liverpool, for permission to acquire two 5-ton vehicles on A licences.
Mr. D. H. Mace, for the applicant, said that his client bad five vehicles and his work consisted of carrying paper for Bowater's, cotton and other goods. In 1933 he carried over 7,000 tons for Bowaters and in 1935 this figure had increased "considerably.
The Bowater company itself had just applied for licences for four vehicles of 26 tons unladen weight. The applicant's present vehicles had been heavily worked and, even with the fleet which he had in 1935, there was not sufficient spare time to keep them. 'Under repair. Them was an increaSe in Bowater's business.
B38 Mr. G. H. P. Beames, for the railways, submitted that no case had been made out.
Mr. V. R. Shepherd, for Messrs. 'Carriers and A. E. Handscombe and Co., quoted the Ridgewell decision in support of his contention that it was a proper case for a Contract A licence.
The Licensing Authority: "I do not know that Ridgewell does apply in this case. In the case of Bowaters, the company is itself a carrier and could not, therefore, under the Act, give a contract."
Mr. Shepherd: "Even assuming, for a moment, that the concern, being a haulier, cannot give a contract . . ."
The Authority, interposing:—" It may well be in law that the company can, because W. V. Bowater and Co., which is applying for four vehicles, would not, in law, be the „same as• Bawaters Merseyside Paper Milts; Ltd. On reference to "Applications, and Decisions," I find. that application is
'being made under the former title, whereas the present applicant ' may well be employed by Bowater Merseyside Paper Mills, Ltd."
Mr. Shepherd: "Even assuming was wrong and that the haulage concern was unable to grant him a contract, I would still contend that the Ridgewell and Hawker decisions stand, because the onus is on Mr. Shoesmith to show that Bowater's is prepared to keep his vehicles fully occupied. The only case I know where an exception was made was in the Robson decision."
In reply, Mr. Mace agreed that it would be proper for Bowaters to give a contract if it were entitled to, but the evidence was that the company would not give contracts. The fact that the concern was experiencing, an increase in .business was evidenced by the fact that it was itself 'applying for licences for four vehicles.
Decision was reserved.