CARRIER'S APPEAL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 213, 9 September 1935, Page 8

CARRIER'S APPEAL.

REFUSED LICENSE. CASE IN SUPREME COURT. JUDGMENT FOB DEFENDANTS. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent) HAMILTON, this day. Judgment was given for defendants by Mr. Justice Callan in the Supreme Court to-day in the case in which James Cyril Fleming, carrier, of Rotorua, asked 'for a writ of prohibition preventing the Transport Co-ordination Board from carrying out its judgment in dismissing his appeal against the decision of No. 2 Licensing Authority in refusing him a licence to operate a goods service between Auckland and Rotorua. The hearing of the caso was commenced on Saturday. Mr. M. H. Hampson represented Fleming Mr C. 11. Taylor the Railways Board, and Mr. R. A. Potter R. W. Dawson and Sons, who have a carrying license between Rotorua and Tauranga. Plaintiff has been running a goods carrying service between Auckland and Rotorua and the Xo. 2 Licensing Authority refused him a license. He. appealed to tin; Transport Co-ordination Board, which dismissed his appeal. The main grounds for the application for the writ were that tlie board had exceeded its jurisdiction by altering the classification of the road over the Mamaku Hills. Mr. Hampson submitted that there were two questions for the Court to decide: (1) How far the suitability of the road to carry the traffic for which it was classified came within the ambit of the Transport Co-ordination Board; and (2) whether or not the Co-ordination Board exceeded judicial principles at the hearing. It was the first case lie could find of expropriation without compensation. The board had refused to allow his client to travel on the road, although his vehicle came within the road classification. He submitted there was no evidence before the board that the road was unsuitable for plaintiff's class of vehicle, and that plaintiff was led to believe that that matter was not in issue. His Honor said that from the public point of view it should be understood that the Supreme Court had no power to overrule the Transport authorities on matters in which they were preeminently expert. The only point in the present case was whether the board had exceeded its statutory jurisdiction or defied the natural rules of justice. In the judgment which he gave today his Honor emphasised that the Court could consider only the jurisdiction of the transport authority, who were expert in licensing matters. His Honor held that under the Transport Licensing Act the Co-ordination Board had acted within its jurisdiction. Regarding the second point raised by plaintiff, he held that Fleming and his advisers had received sufficient notice of tb.2 evidence before the board. Costs amounting to £10 10/ were awarded to Dawson and Sons, carriers, and the Railways Board respectively.