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 
"Case Closed Ruling Restricts Applicants and Objectors
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
PARTIES involved in licence applications cannot close their cases and then have second thoughts about calling more witnesses, Mr. J. R. Lindsay, North Western Deputy Licensing Authority, ruled at
Manchester last week. If this practice were allowed, he said, the Authority's work would never be done.
Mr. Lindsay was hearing an application by Barker's Transport (Alsager), Ltd., for a special low-loader of 20-25 tons capacity on B-licence. The case was part heard on April 25, when some of the applicant's witnesses were unable to attend. After Mr. J. A. Dunkerley, for Barkers, had closed his case, Mr. Lindsay adjourned.
When the hearing was resumed last week, Mr. Dunkerley asked leave to call fresh witnesses, as the objectors had not yet called evidence. The objectors agreed, but Mr. Lindsay said that no further evidence would be permitted, because the applicant's case was already closed.
Mr. Dunkerley pointed out that if this precedent were established, the objec tors would not be allowed any further cross-examination. In dozens of previous cases, after an adjournment, objectors had been allowed to ask the applicant more questions, although the applicant had closed his case. In future, it seemed, the case must be closed to both parties, To this, Mr. Lindsay replied that each case would be considered on its merits, but he was not prepared to allow a case to be reopened in the manner suggested. Objectors to Barkers application were W. L. Roebuck, Ltd., A. and T. Keogh, and B.R.S. (Pickfords), Ltd. At the original hearing, the applicant was supported by four witnesses and a number of letters from civil-engineering and building concerns claiming that there was a need for that type of vehicle in the Stoke-on-Trent area.