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 
Jealousy Among Drivers is No Reason for Grant, B.T.C. Urge
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Applicant's Evidence Praised by Tribunal
rONCEALED questions of principle
were not involved and the appeal turned solely upon an evaluation of the evidence, the Transport Tribunal decided, sitting in London last week. They dismissed an appeal by the British Transport Commission against a decision of the North Western Deputy Licensing Authority, who had granted H. Gilbraith, Ltd., of Accrington, a six-vehicle A licence and allowed them to unify the conditions on 20 B vehicles, giving them a wider radius over which to carry solid fuels.
Mr. J. M. Titnrnons, for the B.T.C., said that one reason put forward by Gilbraith's for the application was the question of jealousy between the A and B licensed vehicle drivers—the A vehicle• drivers were in a better position because they could do overtime, and this had led to "difficulties." Another reason put forward was that such a grant would simplify the B licence conditions. Apparently, Mr. Gilbraith had found difficulty in sorting out the various conditions when the person normally in charge of such matters was away.
The return-load aspect, suggested Mr. Timmons, had not been put forward very strenuously. The evidence came nowhere near to justifying "this important grant." The Tribunal had not before them sufficient evidence of the difficulties spoken of. He asked them to accept the evidence of the Railway witness which was not given casually but "very seriously."
Replying, Mr. J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon said that the matter went further than the jealousy between drivers. There was the human aspect. The grant was reasonable, especially as no additional vehicles had been put upon the road as a result. Flexibility of conditions was always a good thing.
Giving the decision. Sir Hubert Hull, the president, said that the Tribunal had exhaustively examined the evidence and Ett R had come to the conclusion that although they would not underline every word in the Deputy Authority's decision, they were not prepared to find that the result was wrong. "We would have reached the same conclusion," he added. He thought the evidence given by Mr. Gilbraith was of an exceedingly satisfactory character. "It was not marred by features which so often mar an applicant's evidence—an attempt to glaze over difficulties and to inflate the case beyond its reasonable proportions," he concluded.
SUPER LINE BODIES
THE address of Super Line Bodies, Ltd., is Selinas Lane, Dagenham, Essex, their new works, and not as given in the list of special bodybuilders last week. The telephone number is Dominion 1162.