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
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164 
Must Objectors' Case be Disproved?
Page 71
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Transport Tribunal, at an
adjourned sitting in London on Tuesday, heard an appeal by May's Motors (Transport), Ltd., Elstead, near Godalming, against the South Eastern Licensing Authority's refusal of their application for an A licence for a vehicle nist exceeding 3 tons.
Mr. R. Beddington, for May's, said that the concern were established hauliers and held every kind of licence except the ordinary A. The Authority found that an increase in business was established as a result of expansion in customers' business, but held that May's could not prove that customers had suffered inconvenience without also showing that the objectors had not made out their case.
Mr. Beddington submitted that in that respect the Authority had inisdirected himself. Evidence had been given that May's could not always supply vehicles to customers when required. This was why the application had been made.
An applicant had to prove that he needed more transport to meet the reasonable requirements of his established customers, and that this was what May's had done.
Mr., J. R. Samuel-Gibbon, for the British Transport Commission, the respondents, submitted that if the application were granted, the effect would be to license a surplus vehicle. Figures produced by May's were stale, inaccurate and misleading."