EVIDENCE NOT EXACT

Grey River Argus, 25 June 1946, Page 5

EVIDENCE NOT EXACT

Transport License Cases APPEAL AUTHORITY’S REMARKS P.A. CHRISTCHURCH, June 24. -• “Time and time I can’t make out why the Transport Authorities don’t get more exact evidence. They seem to be satisfied with a vague mass of material thrown at them haphazard-, ly”, said the Transport Appeal Authority, ■ Sir Francis Frazer, during the hearing of a case in Christchurch. After making these remarks, which he described as quite general, he said . that Mi- T. . Cleary (counsel for MidCanterbury Transport, Ltd'.), had ■ raised the point, and he thought it opportune to make some general remarks, which he had been itching to make for some time. Mr Cleary contended that the evi-; dence that had already appeared did not make out a case for the granting of five further licences to Burnetts Motors, and that it was incumbent. ■ upon the applicant to show two things: (1) That further vehicle auth- ' orities were needed in the Ashburton county. (2) That the measure of the present inefficiency of licences was. five. ■" “J. agree with you that you should have an opportunity to say it ‘now”, ' said Sir Francis Frazer, .(.to counsel. “I have been struck, time after time, ■ with the paucity of evidence before the Authorities, and upon which they; act. If I were that Authority, I would probably not grant half the licences asked for unless I had fuller evidence”. . . The mass of general evidence indicated that something more in licences was required, but there was - usually, not a tittle of evidence to. show that one, two, three, four, or; five were required. • Sometimes it _ was mighty hard to see how Transport Authorities' found bases for granting a particular number of ; vehicle licences on the very vague.and general evidence before them.