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
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184 
Put Out of Business After 14 Years
Page 87
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Rail Inquiry Agent Gives Evidence Against Haulier
IN its October 15 issue, The Commercial Motor, on the information of a south-coast haulier, exposed ate secret-service activities of the Southern Railway Co. The haulier had been visited by two men, one of whom, he declared, stated that they were Ministry of Transport officials, who had come to inspect his records. When the operator later appeared at court, he recognized one of them as the railway inquiry officer who actually gave evidence against him.
That haulier was Mr. W. E. Pryor, trading as Messrs. Pryor and Gardner, of 29, Malvern Close, Worthing. Last week, after 14 years of operation, he was put out of business by Sir Henry Piggott, South Eastern Licensing Authority, aided by the Southern Railway Co. He was refused a renewal of his A licence, but Sir Henry Piggott deferred action for a month to give the applicant an opportunity of appealing to the Appeal Tribunal. The Commercial Motor understands, however, that he is not taking the case to appeal.
Mr. Pryor (represented by Capt. E. H. B. -Palmer) carried fruit and flowers by road from Worthing to Covent Garden, and asked for the renewal of his A licence for only two vehicles. He admitted that he had been fined for failing to-keep records and on driving-hours charges. He also admitted that he lost money (although
not nearly so large a sum as was said} when the partnership with Mrs. Gardner and her son was dissolved about five years ago.
The Southern Railway declared that the special facilities which it provided, by arrangement with the Worthing Fruit Growers Association, for the coo• veyance of goods to Covent Garden Market were adequate and that the renewal of the licence would perpetuate wasteful competition. Sir Ronald Ross, for the S.R., submitted that Mr. Pryor's business was moribund at the beginning of this year, and was saved from destruction only by another haulier going out of business.
Railway Claim Accepted.
Sir Henry Piggott accepted the evidence as to the suitability of railway facilities. I-le declared that the traffic which Mr. Pryor carried in the height of the season had been false traffic, which had been secured only on a consideration of rates and by reason of frequent contraventions of the law as to hours of driving.
In a statement to The Commercial Motor, Mr. Pryor denies that his business was moribund at the beginning of the year. He declares that the rail
way traffic in fruit is, at that period, proportionately as low as his own, that beiag planting time. He states that in 14 years there have been no convictions for dangerous or careless driving, no licence or insurance troubles, and nt, case of the imposition of a prohibition order on a vehicle.
The following he cites as his rates per ton : —Tomatoes, 30s.; mushrooms and beans, 38s. 2d.; grapes, 65s. 4d.; flowers, 41s. Sd. and 45s. He denies all charges of rate-cutting, and disputes the statement that the increase in, his work this summer was due to another haulier leaving the business.
An audited analysis of receipts in 1936 and 1937, signed by Mr. Pryor and by a Brighton firm of accountants, shows that from January to September, 1936, he earned £485 Os. 9d., and in the same period of this year, £592 2s. Ild.
Mr. Pryor throws some interesting light on the case of the 'railway inquiry agent. The agent, Mr. Aubrey Newberry. admitted before the Licensing Authority that he accompanied the Ministry of Transport inspector on a visit to Mr. Pryor, for the reason: he said, of identifying him. This visit was on October 1.
In certain recent police-court pro. ceedings, Mr. Newberry stated on oath that he identified Mr. Pryor on June 23, also making inquiries on that date.