AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

NEGLIGENCE DENIED BY COACH PROPRIETOR UH E N a coach

6th February 1953
Page 33
Page 33, 6th February 1953 — NEGLIGENCE DENIED BY COACH PROPRIETOR UH E N a coach
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?

proprietor was Y summoned at Watford last week r carrying passengers back from acton-on-Sea on a date later than that I which they were taken down, wherehe was permitted to run only day cursions, his defending solicitor caded that it was not negligence not inquire of booking passengers when .v intended to return.

Ernest George Hewitt, trading as the emier Omnibus Co., Ltd., 103, teen's Avenue, Watford, pleaded not illy to failing to comply with the nditions of his road service licence by rrying passengers from Clacton to atford on Septeinber 13, 1952, who had not travelled outward that day. He was fined £10 with £6 8f. costs.

Police Insp. Bishop recounted a number of previous offences by the defendant, and Mr. P. J. Maggs, a traffic inspector of the Ministry of Transport, said that when he examined, passengers' tickets at Clacton he found that nine people had separately dated tickets for the outward and return journeys.

Mr. P. B. Showan, for the defendant, said that the concern had referred customers to other operators when asked for period return fares.


comments powered by Disqus