Several Appeals Succeed
Page 60
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
QEVERAL decisions, some of them in
favour of the appellants, have just been given by the Appeal Tribunal. Perhaps the most important is that concerning the appeal of Leonard Stubbs and Co., Ltd., Runcorn, the salient points of which were foreshadowed in the issue of The Contreer. clad Motor dated April 19 last.
The appellant submitted that a private car, included in the claimed tonnage for which an A licence was granted to Messrs. Jackson and Ellis. was not, during the basic year, or at all, the property of the firm. It was also submitted that insufficient evidence of need was offered before the Licensing Authority on the question of discretionary tonnage.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the discretionary tonnage, awarding to the appellant the sum of 22 10s. Cu the point relating to claimed tonnage, the Tribunal reserved its decision.
The appeal of Mr. T. W. Harden': Wrenbury, against the refusal of a 13 licence, was allowed, an Order being made to send back the application to the Licensing Authority for rehearing. In this case it appears that the appellant had originally applied for a 13 licence for the carriage of milk and foodstuffs, with a radius of 100 miles. Prior to the hearing, the appellant agreed upon a limitation of 50 miles from Nantwich, but before the Appeal Tribunal the case put forward was for the carriage of milk from Wrenbury and a 10-mile radius to Manchester, B42 with return loads of farm produce and feeding stuffs.
The case was essentially different from that put before the Licensing Authority, and in announcing the decision of the Tribunal, Mr. Rowand Harker, K.C., chairman, said that it was unfortunate that the applicant had asked for much more than he required. Two other decisions have been given. The appeal of Mr. A. T. Barnes, against conditions attached to a B licence, is dismissed. In this case, the chairman expressed the opinion that the appellant had no grievance, and it was a pity that he did not seek advice before lodging the appeal.
Costs against the railways were given in the appeal of Mr. J. Edwards, Livercool, who appealed against the refusal of an A licence. The appeal was allowed. ' •