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 
Customer Refuses to Send Witness
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
nESPITE an amendment to the pro1--/ posed normal user which restricted the use of vehicles they wished to operate under B licence, a bid by W. 0. Fry of Newcastle-under7Lyme to convert five vehicles from contract A licence only partially succeeded at Hanley last week.
Mr. G. Tinsdill, for the applicant, told the West Midland Deputy Authority, Mr. R. Hall, that the basis of the application was that his client was seeking authority to add the vehicles to his existing B licence on the understanding that if the application succeeded a similar number of vehicles would be deleted from contract 'A licences which he held in respect of two customers. The user required was to carry sand and road and building materials for Ralph Lawton, Ltd., Hull and Gravel Co.,. Ltd., and Leonard Leigh, Ltd.
Tinsdill said that Ralph Lawton, Ltd., had told the applicant that they wished no longer to be served by contract licence vehicles. The applicant decided that he could marry together the work of the two contract eustomers—Lawtons and the Hull and Gravel Co.—because they had traffic running in opposite directions.
Under Pressure He was under considerable pressure generally as a carrier, in particular concerning requirements in connection with the construction of the Cheshire Motorway. The merger, if granted, would result in some saving of available capacity.
In evidence, Mr. W. 0. Fry said that the requirement for the motorway was 300 tons of slag a day. Sub-contractors would only undertake the work "if they wished."
Cross-examined by Mr. G. H. Beams, for the B.T.C., Mr. Fry confirmed that no witness would attend the court from Hull and Gravel Co. "They won't send one to this court," he continued, Only Ralph Lawton were sending a witness.
Mr. Hall: " Well, my attitude is that they must take the consequences. They are not the only ones," When asked how many vehicles belonging to other hauliers were on contract to Hull and Gravel, Mr. Fry replied, "Far too many." He said that at present there was not enough work to go round for the existing vehicles, but he had been told that work would pick up again in March. Later he told the Authority that the practice of Hull and Gravel was that they would not help hauliers "in any shape or form."
• Asked by Mr. T. Day, for certain independent objectors, "Is it within your knowledge that rates are so low that many operators are unable to carry on although they are licensed," Mr. Fry replied that that had happened. After a witness from Ralph Lawton, Ltd., had confirmed that his firm did not want to continue employing the applicant on a contract licence basis, Mr. Beames submitted that if the Authority was disposed to make any grant, it should be in respect of two vehicles only, and these should be confined to work for Ralph Lawton.
The Deputy Authority, granting two vehicles to carry sand and ores for Ralph Lawton within 60 miles, said that his attitude to firms who would not, as a matter of policy, send witnesses to traffip courts, was that he would not. consider' their traffic needs—" I don't see why I should do anything to help them," he concluded.