Annis Case : Final Submission
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
1HEN the Annis appeal was
ir resumed before the Appeal ibunal in London, this week, the tirman, Mr. N. L. Macaskie, K.C., d Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, K.C., }resenting Annis and Co., Ltd., what
Tribunal had in mind upon the npany's carriage of oilfields equipnt.
Ile Metropolitan Licensing thority had granted licences for the nsport of this equipment, said the drman, but as it did not constitute tonnal indivisible loads, the coma}, was left to justify its claim to be aaulier of abnormal loads in over: vehicles.
iir David explained later, however, t vehicles 63 ft. long were employed this work. He dealt with the case the objectors, Hay's Wharf Cartage , Ltd., and E. W. Rudd (B.T.C.), I., as put forward by Mr. Norman ts.
teferring to the alleged interview Cch Mr. F. Annis and his father had with two railway representatives in 1936, Sir David said that the railways were concerned with the company's application at that time to acquire two vehicles. It might well have been that Mr. Annis senior directed his mind to these two vehicles and in general discussion put on his business colour most acceptable to the representatives.
This, however, was a slight suggestion on which to build a case that machinery was not being carried. It would be unfortunatz if this conversation were to militate strongly against the company's claim to-day.
Any statement that the company did not carry machinery before the war was unfounded, said Sir David. The company's memorandum, drawn up in 1935, included machinery haulage.
Whilst the Annis Special vehicles had been weighed as tippers, there was corroborative evidence from witnesses to show that other types of body had been used.
The case was due to end this week.