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 
Change of Customer Not "Material Change" " T HIS Tribunal has
Page 109
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
not yet held that a change of customer is a material change in the circumstances relating td a man's haulage business, or a change of goods. But we have held that it is a material change ,if, during the currency period of an expiring licence, a vehicle be normally used between districts or between places between which the 'applicant said he did not intend to use his vehicle," declared Mr. Rowand Harker, chairman of tbe Appeal Tribunal, during the hearing of a case when the Tribunal sat for the first time in Birmiugham, last week.
The Tribunal decided to allow the appeal of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co., against a. decision, given by Dr. Dawson Sadler, West Midland Deputy Licensing Authority, granting a B licence to Mr. William Hayes, June., Forest Lane, Walsall. Setting aside the decision, the Tribunal ordered that the case should be sent back to the Licensing Authority for further inquiry. They allowed no costs.
Mr. J. Wilk, for the railway company, said that in September, the licence was transferred to Mr. Hayes from a Mr. Pearson, of Walsall, whose father, a greengrocer, used the two vehicles involved in the licence in connection with his business. When application for renewal was made before Dr. Sadler on November 1, 1938, the objection of the railway company was not pursued, because Mr. Pearscln, Senr., gave an undertaking that he would transfer his work to Mr. Hayes with the business of his son. it was alleged that
the work of Mr. Pearson, Senr„ was being done by a vehicle operating on a C licence, and not owned by Mr. Hayes, which was a breach of faith in view of the assurance. Mr. Wilk said he wished to call new evidence for the railway company.
• Mr. Field Hunt, for the respondent, objected to the new evidence. If the allegation about another vehicle were true, said Mr. Hunt, it would not justify cancellation of the licence. There was no guarantee that a customer would continue to do business with the same haulier.
The members of the Tribunal refused to allow new evidence to be called, on the ground that it would not assist them in deciding the appeal. Later, after a short retirement, they an' nounced their decision.'