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 
Authority Hears of Special-A Deal
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ADEAL involving a special A licence was described to the East Midland Deputy Licensing Authority, Mi. A. R. M. Ellis, last week. He was told that Mr. T. H. Creasy, Boston, bought a vehicle last February believing it to be covered by a special A licence held by Mr. S. L. Harness.
However, Mr. Harness did not own the vehicle concerned—he had a special A licence for another vehicle and later applied for this to be deleted in favour of Mr. Creasy's lorry. In July, Mr. Harness' licence was revoked because he had made a false statement in an effort to secure this variation.
At last week's hearing, Mr. Creasy asked for an A licence. He explained that he had operated his vehicle until being prosecuted for not having a licence. When he told Boston magistrates the facts they granted him a conditional discharge, and then the Licensing Authority allowed him a short-term A licence until a substantive application could be made.
Mr. D. Brown, for Mr. Creasy, said this hearing was originally fixed for September, but had to be adjourned with the serious consequence that now it was the middle of the sugar beet season and witnesses were unable to get away. The only evidence available, apart from that of Mr. Creasy, was two letters.
Mr. Ellis pointed out that, whilst he had every sympathy with the applicant, A licences could not be granted without evidence.
Mr. Pratley, for the objectors, submitted that they would not oppose an adjournment. Mr. Harness had appealed against the revocation decision, and that had still to be heard. Two licences could not be granted to replace one, so the case should not be re-listed until the appeal had been settled.
Granting a short-term licence for three months, Mr. Ellis said it would be entirely without prejudice to the substantive hearing.