A Licence Withdrawn by Mr. James
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ACASE in which a haulier was said to have sold his lorry to another man who, in turn, claimed that he was acting only as a manager, (The Commercial Motor, May 8,) again came before the West Midland Licensing Authority, Mr. W. P. James, at Birmingham last
week. He ordered that the A licence held by Mr. Harold Henry Bannister, Nuneaton, should be withdrawn.
Earlier, Mr. James said a letter from Mr. Bannister stated that on medical advice he had sold his lorry to Mr. William Weir, Nuneaton, -and had no further interest in it:. Mr; Weir. then gave evidence that he was operating the vehicle as managing agent for Mr. Bannister, by an agreement which Mr. Bannister had signed. Mr. James had adjourned thelnquiry saying that he was not satisfied that Mr. Weir was acting in .a managerial capacity. At the resumed hearing Mr. J. Foley Egginton, for Mr. Weir, said that his client now realized that a genuine mistake had been made, although he had been acting in good faith. He had now reached the conclusion that the best thing to do was to withdraw. Giving his decision, Mr. James said that he found that the lorry had not been used by Mr. Bannister for some time.
SCRAP TRADE IMPROVES BUT APPLICATION FAILS
DEPRESSED conditions in the scrap metal industry now show signs of improvement. This was pointed out to Mr. A. H. Jolliffe, North Western Deputy LicensingAuthority; at Manchester last week, when James Gleeson and Sons, Oldham, applied to add one vehicle of 3 tons unladen to their B licence and add.., the condition "scrap metals for G. Taylor and Son (Clayton), Ltd. within 60 miles of base." Mr. E. Nuttall, a director, said that on their exiSting licence Gleeson's were only allowed to carry min-ferrous metals for Taylors within 40 miles of base. Objecting for the British Transport Commission, Mr.P. Kershaw considered that the only reason why Gleeson's wanted the extra vehicle was to cope with the extra traffic which they hoped would be created if they were allowed to carry for Taylors within 60 miles of base. if the extra distance were not granted, he did not think the extra vehicle would be needed.
Mr. 0. 'Faytor said that the application had been made at his company's request, as the increased facilities would be most useful to them. They sent as many of their goods as was practicable by rail, and the railways would suffer no abstraction if the application was granted. Mr. Kershaw summed up by saying that the new vehicle was wanted for the traffic which Taylor's hoped to provide. There was not enough proof of need and some evidence should have been produced of the traffic which had been carried over the past few months.
The application was refused.