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
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184 
Rail Bid to Crush Established Hauliers ?
Page 85
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WHAT is regarded in road-transport Iflf circles as a reversion to the railway interests' original line of attack in the Smart appeal case, was put forward at the hearing of an application before the Yorkshire Deputy • Licensing Authority (Mr. E. Russell Gurney), at Wakefield, last Friday.
Although the applicants, Messrs. E. Jones and Sons, corn millers and hauliers, of Occupation Lane, Pudsey, were applying only for the regrant, without variation, of a B licence in respect of two vehicles, on the same tonnage as in the basic year, the L.M.S. and L.N.E. Railway companies objected.
Three railway witnesses were called to prove suitability of the railway facilities, although in cross-examination for the applicants, Mr. F. G. Ribbings, A.R.O. Yorkshire Area secretary, elicited admissions that the railways could not offer facilities for direct transport by road, nor tould they prove that the applicants had abstracted any traffic. Mr. Sturge, railway counsel, submitted that the objectors had proved the suitability of their facilities, and, consequently, the application should be refused outright, unless the applicants were prepared to accept a michreduced radius of operation.
In reply, Mr. Ribbings said that the submissions by Mr. Sturge were little less than shocking. If upheld, they meant practically the end of even such old-established operators as the applicants. How could such an application by a basic-year operator be refused, when, since the application was lodged, the Yorkshire Licensing Authority had admitted newcomers to the industry, and had granted additional vehicles to other operators in the area?
Mr. Ribbings went on to suggest that Mr. Sturge's submissions went much farther than the modified arguments which were ultimately put forward on behalf of the railway companies in the Smart appeal case by Mr. A. TyIor.
Decision was reserved.