What was described as a test case of considerable importance to commercial travellers was brought before Luton Borough Sessions on Saturday [December 15th, 1917] under the Motor Spirit Restriction Order, Chief Constable Mr Charles Griffin remarking that, like most of the Orders made under the Defence of the Realm regulations, it was a miserably worded thing for the reason that it left so many interpretations to be made and a decision of the Bench was the only interpretation that could be relied upon.

Defendant Joseph Dickenson, of Palmers Green, London, is a commercial traveller for a firm of wholesale manufacturers of photographic requisites, whose are covers the Midland and Eastern Counties. On November 30th, [Police] Inspector Hagley found him in Brunswick Street in charge of a motor car constructed for pleasure.

Ascertaining that he was a commercial traveller and resided at Palmers Green, the Inspector suggested that there were other means of getting from London and that he should carry the only bag the Inspector saw in his possession. Defendant was alleged to have said, 'Possibly so, but what about Potters Bar?' It appeared that his day's journeys included visits to St Albans, Harpenden and Potters Bar, and the Chief Constable's contention was that as he had little luggage to carry, and there were goo train and motor bus services available, he could be reasonably expected to do his work without using petrol. Under the Order the use of petrol is only permitted for business purposes where a journey cannot otherwise be reasonably and conveniently accomplished. The Chief Constable submitted that if the defendant was entitled to use petrol for coming to a place where there was a splendid train service, every motorist in Luton who had business in London was entitled to use his car for the same purpose.

Defendant's story was that he had in the car from ½cwt to 1½cwt of samples. He left Palmers Green at 9.30 in the morning, called at St Albans and Harpenden on his way to Luton and on the return journey called again at St Albans and also at Potters Bar and was back at the warehouse before 4 o'clock. If e had been travelling by train he could not have done the work in two days, and, as he had two men's work to do, it was important he should do in a day what would have taken two and half days in normal times.

On defendant's behalf, Mr J. L. Phillips, of Amery Parkes & Co, solicitors to the Automobile Association, said this was one of the first cases that had cropped up with regard to the use of petrol by commercial travellers, and it was of as much importance to Luton as any other town because he believed a considerable number of commercial travellers went all over England from Luton.ject of the Order was to maintain the supply of petrol for purposes considered of us to the nation, and defendant had had renewed by the Petrol Control Committee a licence for 24 gallons of petrol a month for the purpose of driving his car for business purposes. He submitted it was perfectly impossible for a commercial traveller to get through his work nowadays is he had to rely on the train service.

It was straining the Order to suggest that any particular journey had to be considered alone. The whole thing had to be done together.

After considering in private, the Bench came to te conclusion that on the occasion in question the journey could have been reasonably and conveniently accomplished otherwise than by using a motor car and imposed a £5 fine. Mr Phillips intimated that there would probably be an appeal.

[The Luton Reporter: Tuesday, December 18th, 1917]