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 
Whose Shoes Did He Step Into?
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Asks LA
STRONG views were expressed by Mr. D. I. R. Muir, the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, on Tuesday, when he refused an A variation application by J. W. Hodgson, of South Stifford, Grays. Mr. Hodgson sought to substitute a 3-ton artic and trailer for a 4-ton truck, hut with no change in the existing normal user.
Objecting to the application on behalf of Mr. W. J. Carpenter. of St. Mary, Grays, Mr. A. W. Baltic said the huge growth of Hodgson's removals and long-distance work was making life difficult for his client. " Hodgson's get the lion's share, we get the lamb's share he told the LA.
Mr. Hodgson told the LA that he took over the licence of Mr. H. C. Bridger, trading as C. Bridger. and Son, in 1963. Asked by the LA, if he recognized a number of names read out in court, Mr. Hodgson replied, "No ". The LA reminded him that when he had taken over Bridget's licence he had undertaken to continue to serve Bridger's customers, yet he did not recognize their names. " Had you any intention of serving them?" asked the LA.
Mr. Hodgson said he had intended to do so but they had not come forward to offer him work, and other customers appeared who required his services.
Mr. W. 3. Aylward, for Mr. Hodgson, agreed with the LA that the original grant was in continuation of Bridger's licence. "In other words ". said the LA. " he was applying to step into the. shoes of Bridger. And what shoes has he stepped into?"
Giving his decision, the LA said this application had been opposed for a very good reason. Mr. HodgSon had bought the Bridger licence, for a business that had run down. It was quite certaia Mr Hodgson had built up an entirely new business without trying to run the business as it was.
"in my view, with a continuation application, the new licence holder must step into the shoes of the previous licence holder. In the course of time, perhaps within the duration of the licence, a variation application could be made, but an effort must be 'made to carry on the acquired business. Mr. Hodgson had not done this." He was not against keenness and enterprise but he was against some sorts of misrepresentation, and the application before him would be refused.