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 
How Railway Failed in Appeal Case
Page 58
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I N last week's issue of The Commercial
Motor, dated February 17, the result was given of an appeal by Mr. L. D. Brown, Hutchby and Collumbell, Ltd., Bircher Brothers, Ltd., Mr. P. W. Clarke, and Mr. John W. Ward (t /a Messrs. Ward Brothers) against the grant of an extra vehicle, under an Alicence variation, to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co. The decision was against the railway, with costs for appellants. The circumstances of the whole case were as follow:—
The railway company has an A licence authorizing it to use road vehicles, from a base at Leicester, for collection and delivery of goods which are to be, or have been, carried by rail. On May 17, 1938; it applied for a variation asking for the addition of a vehicle of 4 tons 5 cwt.
The purpose of this vehicle, it was stated, was to carry. by road, from Leicester to Loughborough and Nottingham, " smalls " which, if dependent on rail transport, would arrive too late. Previously, this traffic had been taken by rail, but smalls had increased to a great extent. The company was thus unable to tranship the " over-plus " (smalls traffic) in time for it to be placed on an earlymorning goods train. It would have to go by a night train, with the loss
of a day. Also, it would not be practicable for passenger trains to do the work.
The respondent, then, proposed to send the smalls by rodd to its depots at Loughborough and Nottingham, to link up with collection and delivery services. The vehicle would be used in a similar capacity in the opposite direction (although no evidence was given of a similar over-plus at that end). The Licensing Authority gave his decision on the ordinary principles of collection and delivery In granting the application.
'Before the Appeal Tribunal, Mr. Thesiger (for the appellants) said that the Licensing Authority had misdirected himself in adopting that principle, and with this submission the' Tribunal agreed. Further, Mr. Thesiger said the case should be decided on Ridgwell, but this time the Tribunal did not concur. The facts and circumstances of the case, it was stated, were substantially different from any previous ease.
Mr. B. de H. Pereira (for the railway company) wished the Tribunal to assume that there was a need for
" same-day " delivery. This, however, was not accepted; there was no real evidence that such a need existed. This point was raised by Mr. Thesiger, and decided the case against the rail company.