AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Adjournment after 'conflicting evidence'

27th May 1966, Page 83
27th May 1966
Page 83
Page 83, 27th May 1966 — Adjournment after 'conflicting evidence'
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

,FTER hearing what he described as k. "conflicting evidence" from two witses in support of an application for a ntract A variation, the South Wales :ensing Authority, Mr. R. R. Jackson, t week at Cardiff adjourned the hearing :II detailed records of loads carried by the lick in question had been produced.

A. G. Orchard and Co. Ltd., of Newdge, Mon, applied for a variation to cover .+-ton tipper to be used to transport quarry iterial for a Newport firm, William Adams J Co. Ltd. A director of the applicant firm, B. G. Orchard, said he usually loaded tons (the makers' recommendation) for if the journeys, but up to 9 tons for the it.

The secretary of William Adams said it is customary for the lorries to carry 10 as. Mr. Ivor Adams stated: "Mr. Orchard les not overload any more than the other ntractors at the quarry. We pay them for 8-ton load and as far as we are concerned it hauliers are the experts and we leave it them.

Mr. Rosser John, for the objectors, W. J. ayton and Sons Ltd., J. E. Roderick and and W. Transport (Risca) Ltd., asked: )o you think you are endangering the pub: highways by allowing overloading?" Mr.

Adams replied: "I have never thought about it like that. The hauliers are the experts."

The LA pointed out that in view of the contradictory evidence on loading it was necessary to examine details of each load carried for one month, preferably for the month of March.