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 
Fleet Increases : Basis Problem
Page 77
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE basis upon which a haulier is allowed an additional vehicle and the extent to which he should resort to hiring from the general pool, before he extends his own business, are points on which the various appeal rulings do not appear, it is suggested, to have greatly influenced the Licensing Authorities.
Mr. H. Backhouse, solicitor to the C.M.U.A., proved on behalf of S. R. Teggin, Ltd., Salford, a 25 per cent. increase in turnover. To meet the returning cation trade, he asked for three additional vehicles, bringing the fleet to the pre-slump strength, but of lower tonnage. Mr. J. Rigby (for the L.M.S. Railway Co.) pointed out that £190 paid during the year by the applicant for hiring was a small percentage on the turnover. Mr. Backhouse replied that this railway argument would preclude Every haulier from increasing his business. The loading of the 10 vehicles now in possession was uneconomic, because of the increased stress and the absence of opportunity of overhauling and repair.
Sir William Hart, North-Western Deputy Licensing Authority, notified that he would allow some increase, but deferred decision on the number of vehicles.