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 
Poulter take-over case papers for DPP
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
EVIDENCE THAT APPLICANTS NIECES ARE DAUGHTERS OF MR. SOLLY DAVIS
• "I can think of no reason for this stupid plot other than for me to be led to believe that Say Davis was not to be connected with Chesford Haulage. The papers in this case will be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions.'
SO said Mr. D. I. R. Muir, the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, on Friday, when refusing the application by Chesford Haulage Ltd., of London. El, to take over 89 vehicles operated by Charles Poulter Ltd., also of London. E.11, of which Mr_ Solly Davis and his son Ronnie are directors. The LA was referring to evidence that came to light during the course of the hearing.
Before giving his decision on the application the LA called Mr. W. Smith, a senior Metropolitan traffic examiner, to give evidence. Mr. Smith said that on October 8 he received a telephone call from an
anonymous haulier who said that he had read the reports of the public inquiry in the
trade press (the case has been reported in
CM on September 19. October 3, 10. 17) and that the evidence reportedly given by
Mr. Joseph Young, the director of Chesford, concerning its majority shareholders was untrue.
At the public inquiry Mr. Young had said that the majority shareholders in Chesford were his two nieces, a Mrs.
Marion Pemberton who was living in North America, and Mrs. Ruth Pollack, who was living in West Germany. Mr. Young had said that these nieces were the children of his brother, Mr. A. Young, and that he himself was in no way related to any of the Davises.
Mr. Smith, in evidence on Friday, said that after extensive checking at Somerset House and the Passport Office in London it had been found that Mr. Joseph Young and Mr. Solly Davis were brothers-in-law. Solly Davis had married Miss Milly Myers in 1934 and Joseph Young had married her sister, Annie Myers, in 1941.
It was also discovered that Mrs. Marion Pemberton and Mrs. Ruth Pollack were Solly Davis's married daughters.
All the relevant certificates of birth and marriage were submitted in evidence except those held at the Passport Office, which, it was said, could be subpoenaed. In reply to the LA, Mr. A. Garfitt, representing Chesford, said he had no further submissions to make but suggested that the LA kept to his original plan and called Mr. Young.
The LA first cautioned Mr. Young by informing him that a person was guilty of an offence when making a false statement in respect of an application or a variation of a carrier's licence. He then asked him if there was anything he wished to say.
Mr. Young said the documents referred to did not exist. and he would stand by what he had said at the inquiry. When they were produced and the LA commenced questioning him on each one, Mr. Richard Yorke, for the NFC, said it was his duty as a barrister to point out that Mr. Young was under no obligation to answer the questions. Mr. Young then declined to answer any further questions.
After a short retirement the LA announced that the application would be refused and the matter referred to the DPP.
He said that he had been led to believe that Scilly Davis had wanted to "get out of haulage". It was, he alleged, the intention of the applicant to hide from him the fact that Sally Davis would still be involved with this company's operation. In this way, Mr. Muir said, he imagined that Mr. Young hoped the application would stand a better chance of success.
"Had I been told the truth from the start I might or might not have been persuaded to grant this application under Section 173 (1) (e) of the 1960 Road Traffic Act", he said.