NORTH BEACH BUSES.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19258, 13 March 1928, Page 11

NORTH BEACH BUSES.

"A FRIVOLOUS APPEAL." DECISION AGAINST TRAMWAY BOARD. "Rather more frivolous than other appeals that the Tramway Board has made," was the description given to a case that came before the Transport Appeal Board yesterday, when Mr Justice Frazer announced that the appeal had been disallowed.

The appeal of the Christchurch Tramway Board was against the issue of a license tor an extra bus on the North Beach route to the Inter-Citv Bus Service the grounds for the appeal being that the existing facilities (two for carriage of passengers on this route were sufficient. Mr Justice Frazer presided. With him were Messrs J. A. Flesher C P Agar, and H. J. Knight. t ilr J ' Hutc hison represented the Jramway Board as appellants, Mr C. b. Thomas appearing for W. Bussell as respondent.

Mr Hutchison outlined the events leading up to the present appeal from the time, November, 1926, when respondent was granted ~3 license to run a bus on the Wainoni route. This application had been opposed l , and a later application by the Board to run a bus on the same route was refused. The Board appealed on this, but the appeal was disallowed, and in February, 1927, the Inter-City Service was granted permission for a second bus on the route. The Board's appeal on this was also disallowed. The present appeal was based on the judgments of the Court and uiuter the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act. They contended that the present bus service was sufficient for the carriage of passengers by North Beach and Wainoni, and that the service was running in competition with the Tramway Board.

"The North Beach people certainly like to travel in this Inter-City 'bus," said Mr Hutchison, "as it is the one direct route. The Tramway Board, however, has two circuitous routes on cither side, and the Board was compelled to take those longer routes at the time they were started."

Increased Wainoni Traffic. Mr Thomas contended that the onus was on appellants to show that the decision of the City Council as licensing authority, was not a reasonable one. The Board l had shown nothing in that direction. All it had shown was that, as a Board, it disagreed with the City Council. The permission for a third ous to be licensed had been obtained after traffic on the Wainoni route had increased at peak hours to such an extent that respondent had been several times prosecuted for overloading. He went to the City Council for relief, and obtained permission to run a third 'bus at peak hours and on holidays. The women-folk of North Beach "had put up a very good case in support of their statements that the Inter-City Service was the best for their needs, and that the Tramway Board's service was not suitable. The Inter-City Service was now justifying itself, and had increased building operations in Wainoni appreciably. Appeals had been before the Transport Appeal Board every time that anything had been granted the Inter-City # Service. The Tramway Board had succeeded in only one small instance, yet although it was a body that could not afford to spend money, it seemed co make a policy of appealing on every occasion, putting the Inter-City Service to great expense. In the event of the appeal being disallowed, therefore, Mr Thomas asked for costs to be allowed against the Tramway Board. To Mr Flesher, Mr Thomas said that respondent was not prepared to confine his route from the City to the Bower Mr Hutchison said that the Board had decided, as arbiter under the Act. that respondent was entitled to the Wainoni area, hut it must oppose any increases to the service" so long as it served North Beach. His Honour, after the Board hadl considered the appeal, said that they had taken into consideration the fact that, for three months in 1927, traffic on the Intercity Service's route had increased 90 per cent, through Wainoni, and only one per cent, from North Beach, over three months of 1926. If these figures had been reversed the appeal would have been allowed, but the increase in traffic was nearly all m tne Wainoni area, recognised as respondent's by the Tramway Board. The appeal was disallowed. "Regarding the question of costs, said his Honour, "this appeal » rather more frivolous than other appeals that have been made by the Tramway Board We hesitate 'to allow costs against the Board, which is a public body and working for the public good, so shall not give costs to respondent on this occasion, but merely indicate that should the Tramway Board bring a similarly frivolous appeal at a futme date, costs will be allowed appellant.