MOTOR SERVICE

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 130, 3 June 1932, Page 12

MOTOR SERVICE

NELSON-CHRISTCHURCH

APPEAL BOARD'S FINDING

'At a sitting of the Transport Appeal Board yesterday an appeal was heard of H. Anstice (Anstice's Motor Service) against a decision of the Licensing Authority in regard to, the motor service between .Nelson and, Christchurch.

The Licensing Authority decided that, subject to the Statutory regulations being fulfilled concerning vehicles used in the,service,,the application by Anstieejs Motor Service to operate between Nelson and "Christchurch, be granted, subject to: (1): Time-table to be -as at. present; (2) the number of vehicles used to be , limited to the preaent size of the applicant's fleet used regularly in the service; (3) satisfactory schedule of goods and parcels charges to be supplied; (4) between Kaiapoi and Christchurch no passengers to be set down on the outward journey to Nelson, and ,no passengers to be picked up on the inward journey to Christchureh; (5) rates according to schedule, which provided, inter alia, for the through fares between Christchurch and Nelson, as follows: —57s 6d single, 105s return. '

Appellant appealed against the decision of the Central Licensing Authority as quoted in sub-paragraphs (1) and (5); and sought . relief as follows:— (1) That the appellant's original faro Nelson to Christchurch, viz., single 47s 6d, return £4 10s be allowed to continue;:^) that appellant be aUowed to inn four days in each- week as per the time-table which he has been doing continuously for the • past eleven months; (3) that appellant be allowed to run a daily service during Christinas, Easter, and school holidays as per time-table. i

The Transport' Department reported that according to the application appellant was entitled to an automatic licence .under section 28 of- the Act. There are three other services operating over appellant's route—Pope's Motors, Ltd., Newman Bros., Ltd., and Bink Taxis, Ltd. . • ';■■ y Evidence was taken on behalf of the several motor services running on the Christchurch-Nelson: route.' Appellant asked for the right to run an extra trjp each week, and to charge lowerfares. On behalf of the Eailway Department it .wasreontendea: that appellant asked-thVboardto allow a discriminating fare against the" railway in the last 85 miles of the trip from Nelson to Christchureh. The Eailway ; Department applied to the board to allow the decision of the CentralLiceiising Authority' to stand in respect to the.fare from farnassus to Christchnrch. On the other hand,_it was urged that.appellant was first in the service, and-.' that the service he supplied met;, the needs of the travelling public. BOARD'S DECISION. In. delivering judgment, dismissing the appeal, his Honour said there was & .conflicting set of circumstances involved in the case. There were four services immediately concerned,! and thc_ Eailway Department, was ,concerned in the run from, Parnassus to Christchurch. - It. was very obvious from the evidence that- there ■ were far* too many seryices,on; the run;- }-,' Under the' Act, how^verjiihe f our existing; services were entitled to automatic''licences under section -28 /of the Act, because tliey were all running, on the service before Ist Apnl, 1931. • The: Licensing 'Authority- apparently came to the conclusion that, the' fairest -way of .'limiting the number-jof: trips was to cut out the trip which was =■ commenced by/ appellant after Ist April, 1931. The board thought the decision of the central authority was quite justified in so far as the time-table was concerned with, regard to type of cars and the fares; the journey from. .Nelson to Christchurch occupied about 12J hours, and in the winter some of the journey must be during darkness. The service car must therefore be a closed car, and be of a comfortable standard. The board did not think it should disturb the finding of the Licensing Authority m : respect to: the fares,- nor as to the time-table on holidays. The appeal ■was therefore disallowed on all throe grounds.- 7 -