HISTORICAL BOXFORD PRESS
Mr. Rule finds…
THEY NO LONGER WINK AT RULES
Bury Free Press
21 April 1950
Because he did not know the authorities had stopped winking, Newton S. Rule, of Boxford, who operates a 'bus service between the village and Bury St. Edmunds, was fined £1 at Bury Magistrates' Court yesterday.
He was before the Court because, being the holder of a public service vehicle licence, it was alleged he had permitted a stage carriage to be used without it carrying a conductor.
Mr. T. A. Symes, prosecuting, said that owing to the shortage of labour and of the necessary trimmings of the war the authorities had by tacit allowance winked at a good deal of the non-observance of this regulation by operators. Now five years after the end of the war the Ministry of Transport and the Traffic Commissioners felt that the regulations should be more strictly enforced.
TIME HAS COME
"The main reason for bringing these proceedings is that the time has now come when operators and the public must know that the time for leniency has passed and that regulations passed for the safety of the travelling public and operators must be observed," he said.
Mr. Rule was the driver of a 29-seater coach and had been approached by a senior traffic examiner in Bury-St-Edmunds.
NOT GUILTY PLEA
Pleading not guilty, Rule maintained that as he was the holder of a public service conductor's licence, as well as a driver's licence, he was complying with the regulations which did not state that there had to be a separate conductor.
"We operators thought the authorities were still winking at these regulations," commented Mr. Rule. "If we have to pay a conductor we might as well pack the thing up. Sometimes we don't take enough to pay for our lunch. It's very hard on the small operator.
"I don't see why they should make an example of me when there are others doing the same, though I admit two wrongs don't make a right."
In reply to the Bench, Mr. Symes said that warnings had been given to a great number of operators in all parts of the area. No general printed warning had been issued and he was not in a position to say whether defendant had been warned or not.