AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Police Win a Towing Appeal

9th February 1962
Page 67
Page 67, 9th February 1962 — Police Win a Towing Appeal
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

APOLICE appeal against a decision of the Totnes (Devon) magistrates last August dismissing three summonses against Reed and Co. (Torquay), Ltd., of Paignton, concerning the towing of a piece of agricultural machinery, was allowed last Friday by the Queen's Bench Divisional Court.

The court remitted the case to the justices with a direction to convict. The summonses alleged that the company used on the road a trailer which did not comply with the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations because it was not fitted with springs, brakes or wings.

Mr. H. E. L. McCreery, for the police, said the machine, a Lister Super Multilevel Elevator, was being towed behind a lorry for delivery to a customer. The question was whether the justices were right in finding that the machine was a "land implement." exempted under the regulations.

Principle The appeal had been brought to establish a principle, Mr. McCreery added.

The Lord Chief Justice (Lord Parker) said a pamphlet illustrating the machine showed that it was a long elevator armed with conveyors which would enable straw, sugar beet or sacks to be raised from the ground to a considerable -height. It was driven by an electric motor and stood on four rubber wheels. -" Land implernent " was defined as "any . implement or machinery used with a land locomotive or a land tractor in connection with agriculture." •

It had been pointed out that this particular elevator could be adapted to 'work by belt -and pulley from a tractor. As it was designed to run with its own engine. it did not come within this definition and the justices' decision 'was wrong in law. Mr. Justice Widgery and Mr. Justice MacKenna agreed.

Judge Widgery said the question might at some time arise as to whether a similar machine, without its own motive power, would come within the definition. He was not satisfied that the removal of the engine would alter the decision, but he expressly reserved the inatfer for the occasion when it arose.