AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

C.M.UA Protest to Go to High Court T "protest of C.M.U.A.

3rd July 1936, Page 29
3rd July 1936
Page 29
Page 29, 3rd July 1936 — C.M.UA Protest to Go to High Court T "protest of C.M.U.A.
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords : Backhouse, Radius

members against irritating restrictions imposed on B licences is to be heard in the High Court. Papers of a Liverpool case are now before counsel in London, with this object in view, and Sir William Hart, North-Western Deputy Licensing Authority, at an inquiry in Manchester on Monday, notified that a ruling would be welcomed by him.

Sir William Hart hinted that a case then before the court, concerning Messrs. Rutter Bros.: of Hatton, Warrington, would posSibly.be a better case for a fight on the principle. In this case he declined to extend the radius of operation.

Mr. H. Backhouse (for the applicant) had reiterated his argument that restrictions under section 8 (3) of the Act should be imposed only in cases where a private business might be used to subsidize carrying for hire or reward.

A long contention also followed in the case of Mr. J. Sheard, of Congleton, whose 40-mile radius for coal was 'cut down to eight miles, at the instance of the railway representatives. Sir William Hart insisted that coal was a special commodity and, as a rule, seven, eight or 10 miles should be a sufficient radius for a local carrier.

Mr. Backhouse replied that, when a man said that he carried only locally, it was not necessary to put the restriction on the licence.


comments powered by Disqus