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 
Axle-weighing defence fails
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A DEFENCE claim that anaxle-weighing method used by Cheshire Trading Standards (Weights and Measures department's new name) had been proved inaccurate by test and did not justify a conviction for overloading, failed before Widnes magistrates last week.
Joseph H. Taylor and Son Ltd, Bootle, Liverpool, pleaded not guilty to exceeding the gross weight of a tractive unit by six per cent and by 18 per cent on its second axle.
Evidence was given for the prosecution that because of practical difficulties at the private weighbridge used, it was not possible to weigh all the axles individually. The length of the weighbridge made it impossible to weigh the tractor's second axle alone so the laden weight was taken, the weight of the second and third axles together and that of the third axle alone. From these it was possible to calculate both the gross weight of the tractor and that of its second axle.
The defendant's transport manager, Mr C. Begga, said a similar load was placed on the vehicle and tested at the Mersey Docks weighbridge and first exactly the same weights and calculations were taken and made. These were then checked by driving the unit across the weighbridge at right angles so that the second axle alone could be weighed. The result was that the actual weight was found to be 120 kilos less than the calculated weight.
The company was fined £25 and the driver £10.