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 
Inaccurate weighbridge so prosecution offer no evidence
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Charges of overloading against five Co Durham hauliers, which had been adjourned since September 13 by Bishop Auckland magistrates following admissions by a weighbridge attendant that the bridge was inaccurate, were dismissed last week.
At the original hearing the magistrates were told, on behalf of the Northern LA, prosecuting, that the charges arose out of the conveyance of ballast by road vehicles, from a stock-pile at Eldon, Co Durham, owned by Burnwright Ltd, to Hartlepool Docks. Inspection of the weigh tickets from Burnwright's weighbridge at Eldon disclosed the offences.
Mr Michael N. Allison of Brancepeth Grove, Bishop Auckland, pleaded not guilty to two charges of overloading vehicles by 1.5 tons and 2 tons 6cwt, respectively.
Called as a prosecution witness, the weighbridge attendant, under cross-examination, admitted the bridge was "not exactly accurate" and the local weights and measures inspector was not satisfied with it.
The magistrates held there was no case for the defendant to answer and dismissed the charges. After hearing that the weighbridge was still in use the magistrates adjourned 11 overloading charges against four other hauliers.
On October 21, when the cases were called, Mr A. L. Vickers, prosecuting, said he proposed to offer no evidence and Mr T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, defending, asked for and was given dismissals.
The clerk to the magistrates said that in such circumstances the facts would normally be reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but similar charges had already been heard and dismissed. He believed the prosecution had adopted the correct procedure.