TRANSPORT LICENSES

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 247, 14 July 1932, Page 2

TRANSPORT LICENSES

Question for Appeal Board ECONOMIC CONSIDERATION Both the Railway Department and the Napier owner-drivers’ (Aard) service appealed to the Transport Appeal Board yesterday against the granting of a license by the central licensing authority to Jenkins Motor Service, Ltd., to run a round trip service from Wellington, via Masterton, Palmerston North, and back to Wellington. Mr. Justice Frazer presided, and with him were Mr. Lisle Aiderton, Auckland, and Mr. T. Jordan, Masterton. The case has been before the different transport licensing authorities on previous occasions. In February the Jenkins company was refused a license by the central licensing authority. Au appeal was made to the Transport Appeal Board last month, and was dismissed and subsequently a further application was made to the central licensing authority, the Jenkins company submitting that the circumstances had altered by reason of the Aard service having been discontinued. The license was then granted, and it was against this decision that the appeal was made yesterday. Department's Case. Mr. F. W. Aicken, for the Railway Department, said he wished to submit a question of principle for the ruling of the court. When the application for the license was refused In the first instance the matter was brought before the Appeal Board, which refused to allow the appeal. Respondent continued the service and made a further application to the central authority for a license and was granted permission to carry on the service which the Appeal Board had refused. Mr. Aicken detailed the circumstances and said the Railway Department considered that the action of the central licensing authority in granting the license after it had been refused by the Appeal Board was contrary to the fundamental principles governing the administration of justice and contrary to the terms of the Transport Licensing Act. Mr. Marsack said the change in circumstances was that the license originally held by the Aard owner drivers was cancelled, thus creating a gap which respondent was able to fill. When, the matter was before the Appeal Board on’the last occasion it was said that it would be open for Jenkins to make application when the Aard license was cancelled. Application in Order. Mr. Justice Frazer said that as the Aard Motor Drivers’ Association had forfeited its right a gap had been created. The application was in order and the case could proceed. It was for the respondent to show that there was room for another service between Palmerston North and Wellington. Mr. Marsack submitted that the question of competition with the railway was hardly justified. “The Dominion” organised the service to Hawke’s Bay in order that the public might get the paper at a reasonable hour. Every opportunity was given to the Railway Department to undertake the transport of the papers, but it was unable to do so. It Became necessary to use motor transport in order that 12,000 people a day in the Hawke’s Bay district could, have the naner.

Economic Consideration. Mr. C. W. Earle, managing director and editor of “The Dominion,” said he would have been glad if the Railway Department had at any time been able to accept the contract to carry the papers. The service, had been running for over three years, and without taking the technical aspect of the matter, it should be treated as a continuous service. There was no more competition introduced in granting the license than had already been in existence for three years. He did not suggest that the board should take into consideration as a deciding factor the fact that there was a service for the distribution of newspapers. What he did suggest was that in the event of two services being equal, ( then the factor of added service to the whole couiJTryside should be a deciding factor. If the papers were not carried in that way “The Dominion” would of necessity have to put on some form of transport which would be less economic from the public standpoint, and he thought they were rendering public service in enabling the added service to be given on an economic basis. The hearing was adjourned until this morning.

’ Appeal Disallowed , Henry Smith, of the S.O.S. service, whose timetable had been fixed by the Central Licensing Authority to leave Wanganui for New Plymouth at 7.30 ; a.m., appealed against the decision of the Ao. 5 Licensing Authority in granting the Hudson service a' timetable enabling their car to leave Wanganui at 7.30 instead of 7.45 a.m. After hearing both parties Mr. Justice Frazer said the board realised that in the public interest and in the public safety it was better that two services on the same route should not run at the same hour. Even when speed limits were fixed the drivers were apt to try and get ahead of one another, and speeding was almost bound to ensue with its attendant danger, however careful the drivers might be. In the present case the board was faced with a difficulty. Prior to the change the two services had arranged to leave at 7.15 and 7.45 a.m. respectively, leaving half an hour between the two, and that was a sensible thing to do. Now circumstances bewond the control of either had brought the two services together. The S.O.S. service could not leave before 7.30 if it was to make sure of its newspaper delivery, and Hodgson’s service could not make the important Te Kuiti connection unless it also got away by 7.30. The board proposed to disallow the appeal, with the reservation that should the speed limits be revised so as to allow a quarter of an Irourclearance between the two services, then Hodgson's service should be delayed until 7.45. The.appeal would be disallowed on the understanding that the Hodgson service would apply to the No. 5 authority to revert to 7.45 a.m. if the speed limits were revised. Each party would pay its own costs in the circumstances.