Railways' Representation Under Fire
Page 15
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DIFFTCULTIES that might arise in consequence of the withdrawal from the traffic courts of the railways' legal representation were a subject of comment at Liverpool on Tuesday when the North Western Licensing Authority, Mr. A. H. Jolliffe, asked why different railway representatives appeared in successive cases. Notice of objection had been given by the British Railways Board, which should therefore be represented as a hoard and not by persons from a section of that Board, such as from a particular railway district. He was not taking exception to the individuals concerned, said Mr. Jolliffe, for they were only acting on instructions.
Problems might well arise under the new system whereby a person taking the case for the railways might also act as a witness. observed MT. J. Edward Jones. One could not undertake prior professional discretion with those who were subsequently to take the witness chair and give railway evidence. He had the highest regard for all the representatives concerned, said Mr. Jones; he knew them all. Their services constituted a valuable contribution to the railway interests but they seemed to have been put in their present situation by their own legal department. Mr. Jones regretted that, to mix his metaphors, he had to use familiar faces as backs for the rod he had to wield.
They would have to see how matters worked out but if objections by the Board were "bandied about from person to person" it was made rather difficult for Licensing Authorities, commented Mr. Jolliffe. He thought the various observations should go on record.