TEMPLETON BUS SERVICE.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20028, 9 September 1930, Page 5

TEMPLETON BUS SERVICE.

o COMPANY'S APPEAL FAILS. PETITION FROM RESIDENTS. The Transport Appeal Board sat yesterday to hear an appeal by the Templeton Bus Company against the determination of the Christchurch City Council as the licensing authority for No. 10 Motor Omnibus District, on May 23rd, 1930, refusing a license to the company to carry on a bus service between Victoria square, Christchurch, and Hornby* Islington, and • Templeton. The relief sought was that the license to the dhristehurch Tramway Board be reversed and the application refused, and that the application of the appellant be granted. After hearing tho case, the Board disallowed the appeal. His Honour Mr Justice Frazer pre- j sided, and with him were Messrs H. J. Knight, W. Hayward, C. P. -'Agar, and P. Langbeiu. ! Mr F. D. Sargent appeared for the appellants and Mr J. D. Hutchison for the respondents. Grounds of Appeal. The grounds of tho Bus Company's appeal against the decision of the authority in granting the license to the Board were:—(l) That it was not valid for throe members of the authority who wore also members of the Board to vote on the question; (2) that the existing license of the Board granted some time ago for a period expiring on October 31st, 1930, was let upon contract to one Laugeson by the Board in breach of its statutory duty, such, service being Unlawful. Even if it were lawful, however, it was invalid in the absence of the consent of the licensing authority. (3) That the proposed service of the company possessed a number of advantages. A petition signed by 823 residents of the Hornby and Islington district prayed that the application should be granted on the grounds: (1) That a through service to Victoria square, Christchurch, from Templeton, passing through Islington, was urgently required; (2) that tho existing services were unsatisfactory and insufficient; (3) that the service proposed by the Templeton Bus Company was one that appealed to tho residents. Mr Sargent stated that the point to bo considered was would it be in the best interests of tho public that tho Tramway Board should be allowed to conduct a service and the application of the company refused. Another point for consideration was the interests of the ratepayers. On a previous occasion the Board had sub-let its service to Mr Laugeson, which counsel contended was a wrong thing to do. If tho appeal were granted a through service would be run by the company at reasonable fares. Mr Sargent stated that the Tramway Board had recently increasod its fares on all its bus routes with the exception of Templeton, owing to the increased petrol tax and other charges. Tho Templeton Bus Company would, however, be prepared to make no increaso in the fares if given a license, whereas there was no guarantee that the Board would not increase its fares. Evidence for appellants was given by P. S. Whitby, J. D. -Baird, and a number of residents of tho district. For the Tramway Board. Mr Hutchison said that tho Board had been granted a license for 12 years to run a service through tho district. The Board had suffered a severe loss on its feeder service over the whole of the period-under review, but the Riccarton tram service receipts, had been . in-' creased thereby, • Frank Thompson, manager 6t- tfte " Christchurch Tramway Board, stated in evidence that the Board had lost less, on the through service since the opposition buses had been withdrawn than previously, the difference being that a loss of £7 per day was reduced to £4 6s Id. After a short retirement, tho Beach, In refusing the appeal, said that a private owner who had conducted a service in the district some years ago took advantage of the Act to dispose of his rolling stock to the Board,, which subsequently ran a feeder service in the district. It was realised that a through service would be much more convenient than a feeder service, but it would be Impossible to provide a feeder service in every instance. So long as the transport authority gave a reasonable service to a district the Appeal Board could hardly interfere. Mr Hayward, a member of the Appeal Board and of tho Tramway Board, had informed his Honour that tho present time-table run to by the buses used in % the service was not unalterable and that if a change would benefit the comunity it might be considered by the Tramway Board. In tho circumstances the Bench did not feel prepared to interfere with the present arrangements. The service was at present merely experimental. Tho appeal would therefore be refused. ORGANIST SUES FOR £1725. ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL (PBXSS ASSOCIATION TELEGEAJI.) DUNEDIN, September 8. In tho Supreme Court William Paget Gale, musician, sued Thomas Alexander O'Brien, picture theatre proprietor, on a claim for £1725 for alleged wrongful dismissal from the position of organist at the Empire Theatre. Counsel for plaintiff said that last week defendant had filed a petition in bankruptcy and plaintiff's solicitor immediately sent the following telegram to the Official Assignee, at Auckland: "Gale's case against O'Brien comes on for hearing on Monday. Do you consent to Gale proving without judgment!" Tho Official Assignee replied: "Recognise no liability. lam investigating the position and suggest you have the hearing adjourned." Mr Justice Kennedy said that plaintiff might apply for a fresh fixture after the erpiration of seven days after notice had been given to the Official Assignee.