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 
No Haulage "Ring" in Grimsby
Page 99
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A N application by McVeigh Transirl• port, Ltd., Grimsby, for A licences for 12 articulated lorries and six other vehicles was adjourned until July by the East Midland Licensing Authority at Grimsby last week after a two-day resumed hearing.
British Road Services, Messrs. Atkin and Sons, Lincoln, and eight other hauliers from Grimsby and CIeethorpes objected.
Mr. David McVeigh said that among the primary reasons for the application were pressure from customers because of unsatisfactory outside sub-contractors, the expansion of production by the concern's chief customers and the heavy demands made on the present fleet.
He refuted the suggestion that an exclusive ring designed to keep out other hauliers existed between John Sutcliffe and Son, Ltd., shipping ,agents, of Grimsby, and his company. He also denied having any shareholding, executive or financial tie-up with Sutcliffe. If this application were granted, not one of the regular sub-contractors to McVeigh would be displaced or would suffer any ill-effect.
In reply to Mr. J. R. C, SamuelGibbon (for the objectors) Mr. McVeigh said that his company paid Sutcliffe 5 per cent, commission on all traffic received from them, but secured no priority treatment in transport at Grimsby docks. There was a fixed rota and transport was sent according to the times listed on the rota.
The traffic system in operation between Suteliffe and McVeigh was ideal compared with the position in Hull, stated Mr. Joseph McVeigh, another director. Answering Mr. A. C. G. Rothera, for the applicants, he said this scheme had been first introduced by B.R.S. and the same method of distribution had been retained.
He believed that the position at Grimsby docks would be chaos if this arrangement were changed. The reason for the traffic dislocation at Hull was the lack of a similar system. The whole port of Grimsby benefited by this successful arrangement and customers turned to Grimsby for orders because of its reputation for the quick handling of dock traffic.
Asked who would be out of business if the application were granted, Mr. McVeigh replied: "Only casual subcontractors."