TWO METROPOLITAN APPEALS DECIDED
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
QN Wednesday, the Appeal bunal
Th announced its decision on two appeals against the findings cf the Metropolitan Licensing Authority.
In the appeal of J. Reece, Ltd., against a refusal to vary an A licence, the Tribunal states that the evidence of increase in gross receipts since July, 1934, is not sufficient to justify any variation of the appellant's licence. Evidence of higher gross receipts is not so useful as evidence of increased tonnage carried.
The issue to be decided was whether the appellant should be authorized to use additional vehicles, so that the company could accept business from a Mr. Costello. It was stated that Mr. Costello was at present using suitable facilities provided by another firm. If the application had been granted the appellant's vehicles would be in excess of requirements. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed, costs of EN being awarded to the L.N.E.R. Co.
In the L.N.E.R. appeal against fie variation of an A licence held by Messrs. W. Aldridge and Sons to permit three motors to be acquired, it was shown that these were required to replace 24 horses.
For 27 years prior to 1935 the respondents carried out cartage work, under a yearly contract, for Southgate Borough Council. In 1935, their tender was not accepted and the 24 horses were disposed of. The firm were, however, invited to tender for motor haulage. At the time cf the inquiry it was not known whether t.‘,e tender had been accepted, but evidence was offered that, apart from this, work was available for the vehicles.
In view of the firm's long-standing connection with the council, the Licensing Authority held that this was a case where regard should be had to Section 6 (2) (e) of the 1933 Act in the applicants' favour.
During the appeal hearing the Tribunal was informed that the council had accepted the respondents' tender. The case was referred back -co the Licensing Authority.