MOTORS v. TRAMS

Grey River Argus, 16 June 1925, Page 6

MOTORS v. TRAMS

THE AIT’KLAND RIVALRY. AUCKLAND, June 15. At the* Siipi’unio Court?, the proprietors of lt,he Auckland Omnibus Coy. aro moving to quash the City "Council's new by-laiw controlling ’bus 'traffic, on tli<» grounds that it is unreasonable, ]).iriial aind inequitable in operation, oppressive, discloses bad fni'th, is in rvstiaint of trade, and is ultra vires. Counsel for applicants (Mr M'eredith)) said the- broaid issue was whether ttjie Council acted bona fide, the Council having an individual interest arising from competition with the tramway service. COUNCIL’S AIM. TO GET CONTROL OF BUS TRAFFIC AUCKLAND, June 15. In the motor ’bus case, at the Supreme Court, Sir James; Gunson (ex. Mavor) gave evidence that the Tramways Manager at least twice, in reporting on thc position regarding bus comj>etiti(?n, bad indicated that unless the buses were restricted, the Council would be faced with a serious position. Witness had never said the Council’s expenditure of £1,250,000 on the pur. chase of trams in 19j19 was threatened .by the buses, and that they would be .justified in crushing the bus competitic»n by any means. He had never ’adopted that attitude. His policy bad always been to conserve the Intelcsts of the tramways. He had maintained it was necessary for the Council to get control cf the bus traffic, for fhe purpose of preventing wasteful compmit ion. His minj was obviously occupied with the city fpnances in respect tc this matter. The by.law did not emanate from him, and he was away from Auckland when the discussion took place. Mr G. R. Hogan, Chief City Traffic Inspector, also gave evidence regardin ’- the need of relieving the in Queen Street. The case was adjourned till to.nior row.