Denial of Feud Allegation
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A SUGGESTION. that a feud existed 1-1 between the Potteries Motor Trac
tion Company Ltd.,, Stoke-on-Trent, and Berresfords Motors Ltd., Cheddleton, was refuted by Mr. J. C. Perks, appearing for P.M.T., before a Ministry of Trans port inquiry in London last week. Also, Mr. Perks described as "disgraceful and unfounded " a personal attack made without a word of warning on Mr. Bailey, a former traffic manager of P.M.T.
The Ministry Inspector (Mr. C. G. Dennys) was hearing a case in support of an appeal by P.M.T. against decisions of the West Midland Traffic Commissioners granting Berresfords Motors a renewal of road service licences to operate express carriage services to transport employees of William Broster and Co.. Leek, to and from work. A decision will be announced later.
Opening the case for P.M.T., Mr. Perks said that there had been a somewhat protracted struggle over these services, of which this was the latest and perhaps " last engagement ". His principal ground of appeal, he said, was that there was no evidence of need before the Commissioner when he heard the applications for renewal and "indeed, there was positive evidence adduced by the applicant that there was no need ".
Mr. Perks submitted • that had the Minister known the facts when he dismissed their appeals against the original grant, he would have taken an entirely different view of the case.
Mr. M. H. Jackson-Lipkin, for Berresfords Motors, said there was nothing in the argument put forward by P.M.T. that called for an answer. " it is with considerable regret," he continued, "that I must inform you that while my friend and his instructing solicitors are men of the highest calibre and would not lend themselves to personal feuds, this is part of a hounding of my clients by P.M.T.; but, as I am instructed that the main person • responsible, the traffic manager, has now left the company, this may cease."