Mr. Hanlon Calls on Salkeld Bros.
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A FTER coming to the conclusion that on two occasions within the past year
Salkeld Brothers of Rowley, County Durham, had been issued with immediate prohibition notices which involved danger to the public. the Northern Licensing Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, adjourned a section 178 revocation inquiry and told the company that he proposed to consider the nrevIous conduct of the company in connection with further prohibition notices against them.
Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, who represented Salkeld when they appeared before the Authority at Newcastle on Monday, said that a notice had been given by the Authority because a B-licensed vehicle, which had been involved in a fatal accident in which two school children had been killed, was found to be defective. The Authority, Mr. Wardlaw stated, also said that he proposed to consider three other prohibition notices issued against the company in respect of vehicles operating under the B licence.
The company, and one of its drivers, continued Mr. Wardlaw, had been convicted at Stanley of operating a vehicle which contravened regulation 76 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1963, as a result of the accident. It was alleged that, among other things, there had been a 9-in, play on the steering, with excessive wear on the drag link. But, added Mr. Wardlaw, it had not been suggested at the magistrates court, that the state of the vehicle had had anything to do with the fatal accident. Indeed, the driver of the other vehicle involved—a p.s.v. carrying school children—had subsequently been convicted of driving a p.s.v. without due care and attention, he added.
Giving evidence, Mr. Vincent R. Salkeld, a partner in the firm, said that the tipper involved in the accident had only recently been completely rebuilt. He said the vehicles were working on very hard work, off the road where deterioration was much more rapid than in vehicles which were used on the ordinary highway.
Mr. Hanlon: "It cannot possibly be an excuse, when a vehicle is-found in a bad condition, that some time before, it had been seen or repaired."
Mr. Hanlon also drew attention to another immediate prohibition notice which had been issued in respect of a Salkeld vehicle only three days previously.
After evidence had been heard from the driver of the vehicle, from the company which had rebuilt the vehicle involved in the accident, and from the Ministry examiner who had tested the vehicle, Mr. Wardlaw submitted that no directions should be given under section 178 unless the Authority was satisfied that there had been a frequency of such prohibitions or that danger to the public was involved because of an act or omission of the firm.