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 
"C to B"
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Appeal Fails
THE action of the West Midland Deputy Licensing Authority in transferring a 2i-ton vehicle from a C licence to a B 'licence was the subject of an appeal to the Transport Tribunal in London on Tuesday. The appellants were Messrs. Charles Hine and Son, Lichfield, who were among the nine objectors to the original application by Mr. P. C. Johnson, of Lichfield.
Mr. Johnson was allowed to carry general goods (excluding household furniture removals) within 10 miles of Lichfield.
Mr. G. M. Butts, for the appellants, said that Mr. Johnson was a furniture dealer, and had claimed that from 1938 he had engaged in haulage with horses. "Three such vehicles were employed, although he spoke of having 14 horses," counsel said.
He had also spoken of dealing with the removal of furniture to and from Lichfield for 15 years, of carrying furniture for antique dealers, and of building material for two people. He had tendered no figures of takings, but said they were about £30 a week. His books and records had been destroyed. One witness called by the applicant had said that he had paid him 30s. a week. and another had mentioned paying 5s. a week.
Mr. Johnson gave up his horses in September, 1954, and acquired a van under a C licence. He had claimed that there were no other vehicles catering for part-loads in Lichfield.
The mere fact that Mr. Johnson had been engaged for some time in haulage with horses did not imply that a licence for a motor vehicle should be granted, Mr. Butts argued.
A number of objectors had given evidence at the inquiry of being capable of meeting haulage requirements in the city. The evidence of need was not very convincing.
Economic Use
Mr. George Mercer, for the respond-. ent, submitted that Mr. Johnson had for a long time catered for a certain class of traffic, and that it would be economic to continue to operate his van for hire or reward. The evidence of need was that Mr. Johnson had been doing this class of work over many years.
Mr. Hubert Hull, president, said that the appeal failed in the main, but the Tribunal thought the condition was "a little too extensive" with regard to the carriage of furniture. The Licensing Authority would be directed to amend the condition to allow Mr. Johnson to carry general goods, and furniture only to and from retail shops and auction sales.