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
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174 
Three More Appeals Fail
Page 87
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Appeal Tribunal, at a sitting last week, granted art application by the Southern Railway Co. for an
award of 2s. costs against E. Haines Jones, Ltd., in respect of that concern's recent appeal, which was withdrawn.
In the case of an appeal by Cox and Co., London, S.W.15, the well-known concern of accessory manufacturers, against the decision of the Metropolitan Licensing Authority refusing a variation of a " B " licence, objections were made by the London, Midland and Scottish and the Great Western Railway companies.. The variation applied for was to enable customers' goods to be returned from Coventry, and it was stated, on behalf of the appellant, that it was necessary to employ two vehicles on this work in order to comply with the regulations concerning drivers' hours.
The Licensing Authority held the view that the carriage of goods on return journeys was not generally desirable, and constituted unfair competition with other hauliers. The Tribunal agreed generally with the Authority's views, and the appeal was dismissed with costs. .
The appeal of Mr. C. J. Randall, of Hornchurcli, 'against the Metropolitan Authority's refusal to vary a " B " licence, raised an interesting legal point. The appellant sought: to substitute a 2k-ton vehicle for a trailer, thus having two vehicles, but with a Combined weight less than that already licensed. It was contended that such a substitution was permissible under Section 10 (2) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933.
On this point the Tribunal decided that a trailer, as defined in Section 36 of the Act, is not a "specified vehicle " within the meaning of Section 10. It follows that the proviso to Section 10 (2) does not apply, and the Licensing Authority had a discretion as to whether or not he should grant the variation. • The chairman, Mr. Rowand Harker, KC., said that the Tribunal's reason for this decision would be given on February 19. The appeal was continued on the question of facts and was dismissed. After a short hearing, the appeal of W. J. Boorman, of Canterbury, was withdrawn. Agreed costs of e7 were awarded to the Southern Railway Co.
On Wednesday last, at Lancaster, the Tribunal heard the appeal of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co. against the decision of the NorthWestern Licensing Authority granting art " A " licence to Mr. C. W. Inman, of Morecambe.