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
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300 
Why Some Applicants Fail
Page 152
Page 153
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
RESUMING my interrupted series of notes oil the problems which . hauliers -are encountering in obtaining renewals of their licences, I would like first, this week, to emphasize the importance of preparing to meet objections. The principal—and almost invariable—objector is one of the railway companies, and sometimes more than one. The railways are able to retain the services of expert counsel particularly well acquainted with the procedure and With the best methods of dealing with the particular kind of 'profilem.that we have in mind. Counsel for a railway company comes to the Court fully equipPed, with all essential data Concerning each case at his finger tips. If his objections are to be overcome, the haulier will need to prepare
his own case with equal care. .
Not every applicant for the renewal of a B licence . can meet the railway companies' objections so successfully as one of my haulier friends in the north, lie is a cattle and livestock carrier and he was actually applying that the Conditions of his licence be altered, so that he could substitute a somewhat heavier vehicle for ohe which he was operating.
Proof of Need.
He had first to deal with the questions of the Authority. He was successful in proving that the need for a little extra unladen weight lay in the necessity of a more substantial body, to enable him fully to meet all the requirements of the Ministry of Agriculture regarding the carriage of livestock.
Next came the railway company's objections. were of the usual description, namely, that the vehicle was superfluous and that the facilities necessary were already provided by the railway. Whereupon the haulier explained to the Authority that, not only was his vehicle not surierfluous, not only was it untrue to state that the railway company provided all necessary facilities, but that he himself could prove that his vehicle was necessary to give adequate and vitally essential service to the railway cOrnpariy.concerned. Further, his
E0 vehicle was necessary, if only on humanitarian grounds.
The Authority was naturally rather intrigued by this downright statement and, of course,.asked.fOr the proot. The haulier then described a Case where a bullock, while in transit by railway, had the misfortune to have one of its legs broken. The railway 'company wanted to unload this animal, but had no vehicle within hail suitable for the purpose. This haulier's own 'vehicle Was admirably adapted to that use, because it could be loaded from the side, and he was able to let down the side and roll the animal into the lorry, inflicting the minimum of pain on the animal and subsequently removing it fo its destination. The railway company's representative admitted that this was a statement of fact. As a result, the licence was granted with modification, as requested.
Full. Evidence Required.
Not every. haulier is in this fortunate position. But there is a moral in the story, and that moral is really the point of this article, namely, that it is . essential to go into the traffic court with sufficient evidence to be able to prove the need for the seri-ices of the vehicles for which licence renewals arc asked.
It is possible to learn a good deal front the mistakes of others.. The first and most glaring of these errors is one which, I am afraid, must, to some extent, be laid at the doors of those who profess to represent the haulier. There is a tendency on the part of some of these representatives to treat the matter as one of comparatively little moment and to make little or no preparation before the hearing.
I have actually been a witness of cases in which the representative's first discussion with his client, of the evidence and of procedure, has taken place within five minutes of coming into court. The result of this neglect was unfortunately apparent during the hearing and what might have been a good case was lost, because the evidence offered was not of the right kind, was not sufficiently positive in character and Was inadequate'. _7 -The a.pplieant was as is customary, invited to produce :evidence to show the need foi. his services, he produced a list of farmers and potato merchants, who, together, he said, had promised him sufficient work to keep his vehicle fully occupied throughout every week. TWO of the farmers gave evidence of their needs. One Of -them was a small holder farming live acres of land, of which only two were down to potatoes! He was very conscientious over giving his evidenceand wound up by asserting his belief that small men, such as the applicant, should be :encouraged, that it was for the good of the 'nation that individual enterprise should succeed, etc. •
• A Good Case Spoiled.
The Authority expressed his agreement, on a matter of principle, with these Views, but had also to point out that the evidence of a man farminga couple of acres could not darry much weight in demonstrating the need for the services of this haulier's vehicle.
The other witnesswas •certainlya Man of substance and had a fair tonnage to handled, His -evidence 'was completely useless, because sufficient care had not been given to preparing it beforehand. He commenced by stating that there were many times when he was
unable to find vehicles to convey his potatoes to Covent Garden Market, London.
Asked by the railwaycompany's representative to give instances, he could definitely recall only . one ot recent date. Moreover, when pressed, he had to admit that, ultimately—after some little trouble, .no doubt— he had been able to find someone else to deliver the goods for him, thus giving the railway representa.tice justification for saying that there were alternative facilities available. No further witnesses were called and that case was lost.
Now, it was perfectly clear to me that this witness really had, somewhere at the back of his mind, sufficient evidence of a lack of .transport facilities to justify his claim that he really had a need for the applicant's services. The witness, unfortunately, was not .a particularly well-educated man ; at any rate, he had had no training in the art of giving evidence.
If care had been taken a week before the hearing to obtain from this man a proof of evidence, if the applicant's, legal representative had interviewed the witness and,-by the simple process of examining his books for a conple..of months back, had elicited definite instances when loads had been delayed because ot the trouble of finding the alternative facilities, a different story would have been told in court. In all probability, the licence, would have been granted Another point concerns the evidence given by applicants themselves and their answers under crossexamination by railway counsel. They appear, in a good many cases, quite to miss the point of the inquiry which the Authority is making. All he wants is some evidence as to the need for the haulage facilities which the applicant wishes to render.
It is of no use to answer, as so many applicants do, that the reason for the application is that the haulier wants to extend his business, or that he has a vehicle lying idle. That is not evidence of need. It is only wasting the time of the court to offer it and, but tor the fact that Licensing Authorities generally are patient— sometimes almost beyond belief—would exacerbate them and spoil the applicant's chances right at the beginning of the case.
Be Wary of Unnecessary Statements.
Nor is it good policy, if railway counsel asks what
has happened to a load which was offered and which the applicant could not accept, because of a shortage of
vehicles, to volunteer information as to how that load was carried. To state, as some do, that a neighbouring haulier did the job, is to admit that there are alternative facilities. It may well be that these facilities cannot properly be classed as such, for the man who did the job in an emergency may not have vehicles which are so suitable or even have enough free tonnage available as and when required.
The essential, however, is to make complete preparation beforehand and to be in a position. to prove the case. Insist on a proper consultation with counsel and, if witnesses be available, obtain proof of evidence beforehand.