Letter Not En ough, says L.A.
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I-1 A SUBMISSION was made to the
Western Deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. C. J. Macdonald, at Gloucester on Tuesday that the burden of proof rested as much on the objectors as on the applicant.
Mrs. W. Rowlands was making an application on behalf of P. H. Burrows, of Cam, Gloucestershire, who was seeking two additional tippers to carry road making materials for T. F. Coke (Cheltenham). Ltd., within 60 miles.
The applicant, she said, had been in business as a haulier for 30 years. His work was increasing and his present four vehicles could not cope adequately.
There was a verbal exchange between Mrs. Rowlands and Mr. Macdonald as to why T. F. Coke had not sent a represen
tative to support the application instead of sending a letter.
She submitted that it was within the Authority's jurisdiction to accept the evidence of a letter when personal attendance was not possible, but Mr. Macdonald did not accept this contention. Refusing the application, he said: "Let there he no misunderstanding about the kind of evidence that is required in cases of this kind. It is for the applicant to make out a prima facie case and, until then, the objectors cannot do anything. This case came up in June last and was adjourned for evidence to be produced. The kind of evidence that is required is the evidence of customers, and there was a total absence of evidence from any customer in this case."