BUS FARES.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20731, 16 December 1932, Page 13

BUS FARES.

APPEAL BOARD'S PpLICY. SPENDING POWER OF THE PUBLIC. Kn indication of the policy of the Traaspari Appe&} Board in relation to the speadißSf, power of the public was fcw'>*''&» 'jpmident, Mb Honour jr Vswticeprater, yesterday in the on an appeal by Kl»ter l CS%/ifotor Services, Ltd., |fi»rf, t&e~ decision of the ChristWjjM, M«Bawpolitan Licensing AuthoWmlm granting the Christchurch Bpferfj Board the use of 5s weekly K|pfa>frin not raising the 9d fare customers on the ■yipiiKfrh'ortb Beach route. Kp|sQ«Pa.bllc Convenience. BHjfM&wrd must consider the pubBPpfraeaßß and the spending powei BlrlNfo in doing anything which [PJPjpiintawfc" the public from obtainof cheap travelling," HwSijHGßour. would be justiMlljlfibing so only if it were satisWSm&'Wo- Christchurch Tramway HH'MNtp rates were economically H|HftJof or were deliberately aimed Hilipil service with the object of Hlfjpfe it. We cannot see that HWpwjJieiffi conditions exists." BWlpjiirr continued that the apKHi,]»! three sections. One was HHWElfce' lnter-City Services, Ltd., WtfnnillH-tbe concession fares over MHJHJhtBii seventh sections. At pre|MJM|Btf fares were -5s and 5s 6d, WMPiiawaeßt was that they should Wptb-fa 6d and 53. The TramBffPr&h ß ** indicated that in cerH|l||§|fMtonces it would not object H|lH§peeHiion .being-granted. Hownot a subject of the apMlfPfrare wa« no objection never'B^mp'P''^to local licensing authority fifl| I ty& reduction if applied for. mM pfe Bight of AppeaL Hk) Hi next section of the appeal, M BEfTOe M fare, Mr Hutchison ■S3 tMpb there was no right of Wffll |H- , tbe refusal of the licensing ■Si ii^° aiter tise fare ' and the MiHJg«Wßah.t he was right in his 991 K''*«•' must be held that as fiH fir ' Bff tiie M return cash H Bfßwriag- question of the 5s ■Hi eS?' '* nad been BU Sg ested » |ffi| WsPPh prejudice the Interif applied to the trolley HHl|ff *tat there was no evidence H|S!|pjß|*fladice to support that US|P|& ,VOA the passes were really HBttßf 'to- Rieet present economic JHIIHgjJK The appeal would be disBmlOJ*. & 'three grounds. ■HhesSV '■^ rac y appeared for the ■rafflsfofotor Services, Ltd., and HK||KPtttc]iison for the Tramway MraHnrt??!* In New Zealand." MBMi&lfc Bussell, managing-director Service, Ltd., gave inK Is return was the low|M|Rß?* could be charged with ■it was the lowest ffiSlffllirP. Zealand. The Tramway less to its caspal WHHHgI'WF I * than to the holders of I suppose the Tramway lßHjfllßßPjf a rated that "there is one that the Tram-BH||™i-¥ro]Sey-biises were on the ■HrafflyW lite; Inter-City buses and |lHßSrasjjgM«)p witness said that |H|WM^'^ J frw charged by the fflHHWf*Tfl was ludicrous. fflffiragpjjjf? Board's View. BHiwKWtpeon. general manager WMBtmsPW Board, said that the MggJßsE' !B|l '*B that the present was raise the fares. It aßHnraPßv to any increase. The have agreed to Mr IBIWBrri "* s faros on Sundays trip ticket if it was HHlfflplJM&erbtandmg that the MH||||mW.J Advantage had been that was made HHWP||!*Vgaod faith, and he JHHMuHIMi breach of faith was was :i«wciated wi»th j