Misconceptions Suggested in " Transfer " Action T HE suggestion that
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
misconceptions as to the law with reference to -A licences had been widespread was made on behalf of the defendants when the hearing was continued at Clerkenwell Police Court, on, Tuesday, of the charges alleging a conspiracy to effect the unlawful transfer of such lieetsces. The defendants are:— R. It. Walters,. a clerk, of Victoria Road, Wood Green; F. X. If: Beeler, stated to be an accountant, of Ampton Street, W.C.; R. A. Pope, a salesman, of Woodville Crescent. Eon'ton; and H. H. Higginson, an assistant sales manager, of Sheepcote Road, Harrow.
As reported in The Commercial Motor on May 14, the prosecution was opened on May 7, when it was stated that Beeler carried on business in Ampton Street as an accountant, Walters being employed by him. Pope and Higgins-on were employed by a well-known concern of motor dealers.
It was alleged that applications had been made for the substitution of vehicles which were, in fact, owned by persons other than the holders of the A licences in question, and that vehicles had been operated under A licences by persons to whom such licences had never been granted.
On Tuesday, an official witness. Mr. Bennett, gave details of various applications for substitution. In reply to Mr. C. G. L. Du Cann, counsel for Pope and Higginson, witness agreed
that he had seen advertisements for the sale of A licences, together With haulage businesses. _He did not understand, however, why there should be any widespread misapprehension as to the transferability of A licences.
Beeler : " it not a fact that there has been a great deal of misconception from the first? Is it not a fact that ,you have people coming before the Traffic Commissioners and' admitting quite openly that they have been running . vehicles on other people's licences? "
Witness : " I have no knowledge of that.'
Leonard Suddaby, a removal contractor, of Crumraock Gardens, N.W,D, said he purchased a van from a London concern. Before doing so, he saw Pope, a representative of the company. He knew nothing about A licences at the time. Pope told him that he would not be likely to obtain one, but that he could try.
He went to the Licensing Authority's office and was told that he did not stand much chance. Pope then said he knew somebody who could help him, and a telephone appointment was
made to see Beeler. Pope said he knew a Mr. Johnson who had a licence. Witness saw Beeler, who said that if Johnson's licence were in order, he would have it transferred to witness.
He told witness that he would have to sign a partnership agreement with Johnson. Witness was not keen on this procedure, but Beeler said it was the only way to have the licence transferred, A document was produced, which was said to provide, among other things, for an equal division of the profits of a haulage business between Suddaby, Johnson, and a Mr. Whitehair. Suddaby stated that this was never carried out. Johnson did not have anything to do with the business. He never met Whitehair at all.
Witness said that his father paid £20 to Johnson for the A licence, and he afterwards operated his lorry under that licence. An application was later made to the Licensing Authority on behalf of Suddaby. Walters afterwards told him that be (Walters) appeared at the inquiry and that he stated that witness was employed by Johnson, which was untrue.
Walters, in cross-examination, suggested that he went to Suddaby and told him he had made certain statements; which he had since found to be untrue, and that he wished to clear himself with witness.
The hearing was adjourned for a further month.