Hide Articles List

13 articles on this Page




A ForgiYing Wife.



County Council and the National…

Farmers' Carriage Licenses.


Farmers' Carriage Licenses. TO THE EDITOR OF THE EXPRESS & TIMES.' Sir,—In some of the late issues of your paper the question has been raised as to the legal necessity of farmers taking out licenses for their traps, and no doubt the subject is important to many of your readers. Many years ago when I was intimately con- nected with the assessing of taxes I fancy that I understood this liability fairly well. but cannot say that I do now. My impression is, however, that any make of vehicle, providing it was fairly suitable for the purpose, would be exempt, and the name painted on. though desirable, was not absolutely necessary. It can be used free of duty by farmers for taking produce to station or to market, and reasonably for persons to assist in the marketing of produce, and, I think it is correct to state, to take the cvner and his family to public worship on Sunday. Such trap must not be used for taking up other passengers, or for purposes of pleasure and this would be found very inconvenient sometimes. See the enclosed cutting from the Mark Lane Express' of a test case on this subject. Perhaps you may be good enough to print this in full for the benefit of your readers. JOHN SHUKEB. Church stoke. The extract referred to by Mr Shuker is as follows :— The Lord Chief Justice together with Justices Pickford and Coleridge heard in the King's Bench Division on Monday the case of Cook v. Hobbs, which raised an important point in carriage licenses. It was an appeal by Nicholas Cook, farmer and ropemaker, of Haddon Farm, Filleigh, from a conviction by Devonshire County Magis- trates, sitting at South Molton, for using a vehicle which was unlicensed for the conveyance of passengers, the passengers being the appellant's wife and son. The ground of appeal was that, as VIIR wife and son had been driven to Barnstaple market, where the appellant had two stalls, for the purpose of assisting in the sale of ropes and farm produce, they were burden" within the meaning of the Act, and therefore a license was not required for the vehicle, which had been con- structed purposely for the conveyance of burden in the course of his trade and business. There was a long argument, in the course of which Mr Justice Pickfcrd remarked that he did not know what "burden" meant if it did not mean any person or thing necessary to the carry- ing on of business. The Lord Chief Justice, in giving judgment, said the case was a peculiar one, inasmuch as the bena-fides of the appellant were not questioned. As far as user was concerned, the magistrates had found that the cart was used for carrying ropes and farm produce, and the wife and son for the purpose of selling the farm produce at two stalls in the market. A man can drive nis own cart, and when he is in it, it would not be unfair to say that he was burden within the meaning of the Act. It was not an unreasonable thing to say that taking the people who were to dispose of the goods were burden" also. He thought the appeal should be allowed. Mr Justice Pickford concurred. Mr Justice Coleridge pointed cut that any cart was capable of being used for purposes other than its intended use. The carrying- to market of the man's wife and son solely for the purpose of trade did not necessitate a licensed vehicle. The appeal was therefore allowed with costs.



-----....---Crippen's Mistress.