Too Much Generality, Says Authority
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THERE seemed to he an increasing 1 tendency for witnesses supporting applications to indulge in generality when giving evidence, said Mr. W. P. James, the West Midland Licensing Authority, when considering the case of John Haydon and Sons (Biddulnh), Ltd., at Hanley list Friday. This did not help the applicants, he continued, when specific details were required.
Haydon's were asking for two vehicles of 10 tons on A licence with conditions: "livestock and cattle foods, Lancashire, Midlands, Wales, Yorkshire, Scotland and Leicester." If this were granted they would surrender a contract A vehicle for the S.P.B.A. Co., Ltd., Manchester, which was due to expire on October 31 next. Originally the case had been opened in September, when several farmers, butchers and cattle dealers had spoken of their transport difficulties and inconveniences caused through delays.
Mr. F. Beswick, Overhall Farm, Biddulph, stated that he transported about 30 cattle each week. He often went to Oswestry market, but recently had not been able to do so as livestock vehicles had been unobtainable. Replying to Mr. G. H. P. Beames, objecting on behalf of the British Transport Commission, he said that often cattle had to be left overnight at the market when they had been purchased, as it was impossible to carry them back to Biddulph immediately.
Another farmer pointed out that animals were arriving home from the Welsh Cattle Market about 11 p.m. The railways could not be used as there were no direct connections in remote country districts. They used no hauliers apart from Hayclon's.
Mr. F. Haydon, director, produced supporting letters and operational schedules. For the last financial year the earnings for the A fleet had been £10,475 and the B fleet £16,214. He said that the application was opposed by Mr. C. Mear, a livestock haulier, but on August 16, last, he had tried to hire a vehicle from Mr. Meas. He had said that on this occasion all his vehicles were fully utilized.
In evidence, Mr. Mear said he had 10 'Vehicles of his own, and sometimes he was able to undertake more work. On an average, he did not consider that there was a shortage of livestock vehicles, but there were always .isolated occasions when delays occurred.
In his final submission, Mr. G. C. Tinsdall, objecting for Mr. Mear and Oldham Transport, Ltd., stated that few details had been given by the many witnesses of specific instances when there had been delays and lack of transport. He asked that, if a grant were made, Banbury and Rugby should be excluded.
Mr. James stated that much evidence had been called; it merited the grant of only one vehicle, provided that the contract A licence were surrendered. This had to run until October 31 before it could be given up, so the new conditions for the vehicle could not come into effect until then. He amended the normal user to read "Livestock within a radius of 65 miles, excluding Rugby and Banbury. and feeding stuff for the S.P.B.A. Co., Ltd., and the Dane Valley Farm Supply Co., Ltd., within 15 miles of base."