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
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236 
Refusal Not Natural, says Appellant
Page 71
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
APPEAL1NG to the Transport Tribunal in London on Tuesday against the refusal by the Metropolitan Licensing Authority to allow him a
licence for a lorry, Mr. W. G. Murray, of Badgers Cross, Eltham, declared: "It doesn't seem natural to me. I can't see how anyone could refuse. People want me to drive a lorry, I want to drive a lorry—that's as far as I can see it."
Mr. Hubert Hull, president, told him: "That is a good broad view and sounds sensible to a lot of people. Before 1933 that was the law. Anyone could drive a lorry for anybody. Now the law is different and before a licence is granted all sorts of things have to be proved."
Mr. Murray said that for years he and a Mr. Duggan had been using a lorry, the present one they owned having been bought by them jointly, although the licence was in Mr. Duggan's name. He had been running the lorry while Mr. Duggan was ill and when the licence expired last August he had sought to have it placed in his name. This had been refused.
The lorry carried goods for two Eltham concerns, Rotaro, Ltd., and Finswede Wood, Ltd. Both these companies were now using the vehicle with a C licence.
Mr. Hull told Mr. Murray that he had provided insufficient detail as to earnings. Mr. Murray said he could supply the information, and Mr. Hull said the Tribunal would take the unusual course of adjourning the appeal to allow him to produce it.