TRANSPORT APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 248, 15 July 1932, Page 6

TRANSPORT APPEAL

Board Refuses License UNNECESSARY SERVICE The appeal by the Railway Department and the Napier owner-drivers (Aard) service against the issue of a license by the Central Licensing Authority to Jenkins Motor Service Ltd. to run a round trip service from Wellington via Masterton, Woodville, Palmerston North and Levin and back to Wellington was concluded before 'the Transport Appeal Board yesterday. The appeal was allowed, with costs. Mr. Justice Frazer presided, and with him were Mr. .Lisle Aiderton, Auckland, and Mr. T. Jordan, Masterton. Earlier in the year the license had been refused by the central authority, and this was confirmed by the Appeal Board early in June. Subsequently, on the ground that conditions had changed, the application to the central authority was renewed, and on this occasion the license was granted. This was the subject of the appeal just heard. Advocates for the appellants, devoted a considerable time to cross-exam-ination concerning the possibility of terminating the run at Woodville and returning via, the Wairarapa. Mr. Justice Frazer remarked that even If it was considered that the ser-

vice should end at Woodville and return via the Wairarapa, that was not a matter for the court to decide, as the question of a license for that purpose was one for the local authority. Evidence was given by Henry Smith, of the S.O.S. service, who had been subpoenaed by the Railway Department, as to the nature of his services between Palmerston North and Wellington. Service cars were not doing well now, but as times improved it was hoped they would do better. He was prepared to carry the newspaper service via the Wairarapa to Palme ®, on North and from there back to Wellington by the existing service. For the Railway Department it was submitted that the decision of the Central Licensing Authority was wrong, and that the needs were catered for in regard to passenger traffic without the license granted to Jenkins, who was not entitled to an automatic license. Similar submissions were made for the Napier owner-drivers. It was submitted for the respondent that the central authority had found that it was desirable that one license should be granted for this service in the public interest, and the appellants had not shown that it was not in the public interest. After a brief retirement the court found that it was not necessary or desirable in the public Interest that the passenger service license should be granted, and allowed the appeal with costs. The service in question was not entitled to an automatic license, and on the number of passengers carried it had not been shown that it was desirable or necessary in the Interests of the public.