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 
No Case--L.A.
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN application by Charles Alexander and Partners (Transport) Ltd., which was continued at Edinburgh on Monday, for six rigid vehicles and 19 artics was refused by the Scottish Licensing Authority, Mr. W. F. Quin, who said there was no case to answer.
The applicant wished to carry North British Rubber traffic from Edinburgh to destinations in Scotland and England formerly handled on contract licences by Clark and Co. (Birmingham) Ltd. and Bell and Co. (Transport) Ltd., Edinburgh.
Both firms were eliminated in a decision to place all North British work with Charles Alexander, who then asked for conversion of his normal user on six existing vehicles and the addition of 19 articulated outfits on A licence. Objectors claimed that the applicant had had no previous connection with this traffic.
Mr. Charles Alexander indicated that following the continuation in February, North British had taken 14 of his vehicles on C hiring terms. This was, Mr. Alexander said, a question of tiding over the interval until a decision was given.
On the subject of collection and delivery it was shown that Alexander was using some of the same sub-contractors as used by the original trunk operators, although one argument had been that the local delivery services were inadequate.
On this subject Mr. Quin pointed out that the application really asked the Authority to override his colleagues in the respective area in granting a sufficient capacity to permit C and D work locally through the use of trunk vehicles. Mr. Quin ruled that this was a unique case where a third party had intervened between a contract hirer and his client and that abstraction must result.