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 
Hauliers Promise Not to Loan Vehicles
Page 55
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A N undertaking was given by G. and C. -1-1 Johnson (Claxby), Ltd., at Lincoln, last week, that they wotild not loan their three livestock containers to an associated company, Johnson's Scunthorpe (1956), Ltd., if the vehicles were transferred from special A licence to A licence,
After receiving this promise, D. E. Langton, Ltd., withdrew an objection to Johnson's request for 10 special A vehicles to be transferred to A licence. Mr. A. R. M. Ellis, East Midland Deputy Licensing Authority, granted the application.
Mr. A. C. G. Rothera, for Johnson's, said their fleet of 14 vehicles was fully employed and during the past year had travelled 504,000 miles to earn £45,000. Hiring amounted to £35,500, of which .£12,700 was to their associated company. The vehicles, apart from the livestock containers, were responsible for about 254,000 miles and earnings of £23,200.
A slight increase in unladen weight from 31 tons 11 cwt. to 34 tons 5 cwt. was due to the need to carry grain and fertilizers in bulk, for which high sides had to be fitted. The varied commoditie,, carried were mainly within a radius of 150 miles, but included Bristol, Cardiff, Southampton, North Wales, Newcastle and Glasgow.
A mistake in publication, which suggested that they were seeking two additional cattle containers when, in fact. they were -still entitled to three on the special A licences, was probably responsible for the two objections originally received.
Mr. C. Hunter, for D. E. Langton, Ltd., said they would be satisfied if the containers were confined to the Ciaxb■ company.