SUTTON COLDFIELD PETTY SESSIONS
TUESDAY. – Before the Mayor (Councillor J. Appleby) and Alderman E. Ansell.
WHAT IS A “BUSINESS” CONVEYANCE?
William Jacob Davis, builder, Sheffield Road, Erdington, was summoned by George H. Bunney, excise officer, Upper Holland Road, Sutton Coldfield, for keeping a carriage without having a license. – Mr. J. W. Malcolm, Inland Revenue supervisor, Walsall, appeared to prosecute. – The excise officer stated that on August 13 he saw defendant driving a trap in Boldmere Road under circumstances in which it could not be said the trap was being used for business purposes only. Defendant was accompanied by a lady (his wife) and two children, and later in the day he saw them in Sutton Park. The trap was a small black one of pony size, with curved sides, with seats for two at the front and two at the back. A notice was sent to defendant requiring him to take out a license, but he had failed to do so, and when written to for an explanation he sent a reply which was now produced. – Replying to defendant witness said proceedings had not been taken before because it was desired to give him every opportunity of taking out a license. – On oath, defendant said his business was not large enough to allow him to keep a vehicle for the purpose of d riving out his wife and children. He only possessed one pony, and that was usually employed in pulling about a wagon, but he was obliged to have a lighter vehicle for taking out small items. On the present occasion he had a bag of cement in the front of the trap. He always found it necessary to take someone with him in the trap because he did not think it safe to leave it outside the places at which he had to call. If there was not a man about he took his wife, and on this occasion she had the children with her because there was no one in the house to leave them with. He took the cement to a house in Chester Road, and coming back he went into the park because he thought it the nearest way from the Beggar’s Bush, New Oscott, to Mr. W. J. Langley’s house in Coleshill Street, Sutton Coldfield, where he had to call. – Replying to Mr. Malcolm, defendant said on the day of the offence his name was on a detachable board at the back of the trap, but the excise officer said he examined the trap at the time and saw no name. – Mr. Malcolm, addressing the Bench, contended that as the vehicle was not solely constructed or adapted for business purposes defendant was not entitled to exemption, and in support of this view he put in a paper which he stated showed that this had been maintained in two cases, even though in one instance it was proved that the vehicle had been specially strengthened for long distances. – The Clerk: According to that, if a costermonger purchased an old trap and used it for his business he would be liable? – Yes. I have had about 20 similar cases at Walsall. Mr. Malcolm was also understood to say that a trap with cushioned seats was liable, and that defendant’s trap was so equipped. – Defendant was fined 5s. and costs, and told that he must take out a license forthwith.
(Sutton Coldfield News, 8th December 1906)
Our Family 2 