APPEAL UPHELD.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20565, 6 June 1932, Page 6

APPEAL UPHELD.

BUS SERVICE AND TRAMWAY BOARD. MR JUSTICE FRAZER'S COMMENT. "The Christchurch Tramway Board appears to bo persisting in its efforts to oust the Inter-City Bus Service," commented his Honour, Mr Justice Frazcr, in giving his decision on Saturday morning, in a case in which the In-tcr-City Motor Service, Ltd., appealed to the Transport Appeal Board against the decision of the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, relating to the minimum, fares charged on the North Beacli to Christchurch route. The appeal, win en was opposed by the Tramway Board, was allowed. With his Honour (chairman) were Messrs Thomas Jordan, of Masterton (appointed by the municipal authorities) and Lisle Anderton, of Auckland appointed by the Motor Associations). The licensing authority fixed the following minimum single fares.—First section 4d, second section sd, third, fourth., and fifth 6d, sixth 9d, seventh lOd. The appellant desired them fixed at: First section 4d, second and third 4jd, fourth sd, fifth and sixth tid, and seventh 7d.

Many Appeals. Counsel for the appellant recounted the history of the dispute between the two parties, and said that, there had been 20 appeals. The appellant had won all but one of them. The chairman of the Tramway Board, ho remarked, was a member of the licensing authority. Counsel for the Tramway Board contended that where the Inter-City bus route was in direct competition with tho tram service, the Act made it necessary that a penal fare should be imposed on the bus service. There was competition on the first and second sections and on the sixth and seventh sections. Tho third, fourth, and fifth sections served by the motor service were in the Wainoni area, but it had been found that the third section did not affect the interests of tho tram service. The licensing authority had imposed a faro of 6d on this section. There was no dispute concerning the fourth and fifth sections. Ah to the concession faros, provision should be made in any finding to fix an amount greater than the tram fares that was considered proper in the discretion of the Board. A Local Need.

In the course of his judgment his Honour said that prior to the starting of the bus service the Tramway Board had refused to run a service, and the appellant was entitled to serve a local need. In the City limits there was competition with the trams, and it was obvious that, over the short distances, the appellant did not desire to attract too many passengers to the exclusion of those travelling longer distances. Tho fares would be fixed in accordance with the appellant's request, with the exception that, over the sixth and seventh sections they would be 7d and Bd, instead of 6rl and 7d. The return fares were Is on week-days and Is 3d on Sundays, and tho appellant would be allowed to retain the twelve-ride concession tickets. Costs were allowed against tho Tramway Board.