OMNIBUS LICENSE

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 53, 4 March 1927, Page 12

OMNIBUS LICENSE

AKGUMENT BEFORE APPEAL BOAED

"MONOPOLY" SUGGESTION

RESENTED

NEEDS OF THE HUTT VALLEY

The hearing of the appeal against the City Corporation's decision in granting Harold Ingham, of Petone, a motor-bus service between Lower Hutt and ■Wellington, was continued yesterday afternoon.

The appeal ivas heard before the Transport Appeal Board, which consisted of the following members:—Mr. Justice Erazer (chairman), and Messrs. E. Eonayne (Government representative), S. G. Nathan (outside local authorities), *H. Huggins (Corporation), and W. G. M'Donald (bus proprietors). Mr. G. G. Watson appeared for the appellants, the bus proprietors, and Mr. T. M. -Wilford appeared for Ingham. . The appellants' case was closed yesterday afternoon, and Mr. "Wilford addressed the board.

CRITICISM RESENTED.

At the outset, Mr. Wilford said that regarding the criticism of the City Corporation, it was clear that any Parliament or council had to delegate its work to committees. The City Council had given his friend every liberty, and ho (Mr. Wilford) considered Mr. Watson's remarks relative to the City Corporation as the licensing authority as most unjustifiable.

Mr. Wilford said he wanted to contradict the opinion that the Act under which the board was created gave a monopoly. Section 6, sub-section 2, of the Act provided that the licensing authority, in determining whether any application for a license should be granted, should take into consideration any existing and proposed facilities for the transport of passengers within the area proposed to be served. It was ridiculous to suggest that it was intended to' give. a monopoly to persons at present running a service, so long as there were provided barely sufficient cars to carry on the service. The only provision which was intended to benefit existing traffic was section 10, subi section 2, providing for an additional ! twopenny fare, and that expressly benefited only an existing tramway or motor-bus service carried on by any local or.public authority. PRIVATE OWNERS EXCLUDED. I Thus, counsel contended, private | owners were excluded. The ultimate j object of an Act of Parliament was I for the public interest, and not the service of special private interests. Before any private person could claim that a statute gave him a special privilege he must show that it was so given him. INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC. The licensing authority, said Mr. Wilford, must consider the interests of the public, and not the special interests of any privato individuals. With a growing service liko that to the Hutt he submitted' that the licensing authority was perfectly justified in granting a license for additional buses to run so long as the proposal would not unreasonably increase the number of buses plying for hire. An additional six buses, he said, would not overweight tho service. He submitted that the li-' censing authority Js # decision should not be lightly set aside! The decision, he submitted, should not bo disputed unless those attacking it showed clearly that it was wrong. . Evidence was called on behalf of tho respondent, with the object of showing that tho district was inadequately catered for. Evidence was also given of a resolution carried by the Lower Hutt Borough Council supporting Ingham's proposal for the extra six buses. The Court, at 5.40 p.m., adjourned till 10 a.m. to-day.