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 
Just And Merciful Solution ', Says L.A. On Renewal Bid
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ALUSE of assurances given by .tnesses supporting a take-over of s in the name of J. E. Baker r) and Barons and Carpenter Ltd. ,eek, the Metropolitan Licensing rity, Mr. D. I. R. Muir, said he had I to follow the lenient course urged tim by counsel in the case, to whom greatly indebted. It was "a just terciful solution" to an unhappy
M. H. Jackson-Lipkin said that aker was in court by permission Home Secretary, following a confor offences which could prevent /er again being a licensed haulier. taker and her three young children vital interest in steps to prevent gration of the business.
dful of his obligations to his family his customers, said counsel, efforts ,-..ten made to find a new managetf the business. The Customs and authorities were also concerned, ditional penalties amounting to had been imposed after Baker's :e and his prison term would he ed by 10 months if the money were und from somewhere.
tinning, Mr. Jackson-Lipkin said ief customer of Baker's firm was fransport) Ltd. Mr. W. J. Syme. :tor of SBS. had agreed to manage s business for the joint benefit of id Mrs. Baker, and it was proposed m another company to take over ences concerned as soon as possBarons and Carpenter Ltd., said 1. were intending to dispose of their road haulage interests to Baker, but the transaction was not finalized.
Mr. J. E. Baker gave an undertaking to play no part whatsoever in the future conduct of the business. Questioned by the LA, he agreed he had signed documents as a director of Barons and Carpenter because he thought he was to be made a director: he had not wanted to press Mr. Carpenter, who was unwell, to sign the papers. Mrs. Baker agreed to exclude her husband from all responsibility in the new company to be jointly administered by Mr. Syme and herself.
A director of Bowes Transport (Muirkirk) Ltd., Mr, T. E. Rowe, said he had carried on Baker's business recently but he would fall in with the arrangements now proposed.
Miss E. Havers, for Barons and Carpenter, said an investigation under Section 178 was pending. It was a serious matter that Baker should have operated the Barons and Carpenter vehicles and signed documents without authority. As the company had been paid it was legally and morally bound to transfer the busi ness to Baker, and a further application would have to he made by Mr. Syme to take over the vehicles concerned. We are entirely at your mercy ". said Miss Havers, appealing for a considerable degree of leniency in view of Mrs. Baker's predicament.
Mr. Muir, giving his decision, said he would grant the renewal application of the Baker licences and the substitution proposed by counsel and no action would be taken on the Section 178 offences.