APPEAL SUCCEEDS

Hokitika Guardian, 3 December 1932, Page 2

APPEAL SUCCEEDS

NEWMAN'S Y. WEST COAST MOTORS. ( HOKITIKA-ARTHURS PASS SERVICE, The Transport Appeal Board which sate in Hokitika yesterday under His Honour Mu* Justice Fraser allowed) the appeal by Newmans Motors Ltd. against the license granted to West Coast Motors j Ltd., for the conducting of a passenger service between Hokitika and Hokitika, viiai Arthurs Pass. By this action the license previously held by respondent is cancelled.

Yesterday morning was taken up with the hearing of evidence by witnesses for appellant company, the 'outstanding feature of which was the assertion by each of the seven witnesses that the service run by West Coast Motors was quite irregular. Mr Knight, counsel for appellant, questioned Kerr closely as to the company’s waybills and suggested that they had been subject to alterations. He said that in many of the waybills the names of client® in connection with the Pass service appeared, to have been added to the bottom of*' entries on the waybills, while only a comparatively few appeared iii the body of the items.

Questioned regarding alterations to the waybills witness said that he could offer ho explanation other than the person who had entered such items, had observed an error, and corrected it accordingly. He contended' that all items on the waybills had only been entered in the usual course of business, and denied that additions had bedn made.

The waybills in question were subjected to. a close scrutiny with magnifying glasses by members of the Board.

Witness said that it was quite feasible that the names of passengers should "be found at the foot of the waybills, las the drivers of the cars were .generally the last in each day.

To His Honour witness said that a passenger might be picked up, arid the entry would not be made until the driver returned. He admitted that the books might have been kept in a more careful manner.

'Counsel said that on several of the waybills the only items altered were those relating to Arthurs Paiss. To Mr Knight witness said that in the first year he started out he carried three times as many passengers as in either of the past two seasons. If he were to lose his license, it was not likely that passengers would come from the Pass to Hokitika and change over to his service at Hokitika.

Mr H'anmain, counsel for respondent: To your knowledge have those waybills been altered since the day they were made out?—Certainly not. Do not Harcourts and ' Newmans work in togetherP—They certainly do, but never give us a passenger. I will not condemn Harcourts, or any other servic-e j where a nuan is getting his bread and butter.

James Francis Shannon, said that for some years he had been a driver for West Coast Motors, and was on the Arthurs Pass run during the past two seasons. There were numerous occasions when their car would not leave within ten minutes of the other company.

His Honour: Did l you not go- on to the station platform and try to pick up oilier ipasisengers P—No, I only took those who were booked.

To Mr Knight, withness said that sometimes he had only one passenger to nick up whereas Newmans had half a dozen and consequently lie had left as much las three-quarters of an hour before. He did not agree with the evidence hoard: earlier that the West Coast service had been irregular, in that it did not carry out the journey more than, six times.

Frederick Painment, a driver engaged by West Coast Motors, said that lie was on tho run test wnson during which lie would do about twelve triiis while he considered the previous witness would have made even more trips. Three other drivers were also engaged. If it were stated that West Coast Motors had only made th n journey six times, he would say it was contrary to fact. Mr Knight said they were: getting to the stage where there were more trips claimed to have been made than there were available days.

Mr Hannan: Oh, no. There were 36 trips made last season. Air Knights: It was quite feasible not to notice the other service on occasions. Bis Honour: How many times did you cross the Taipo bridge on ypur journey.—About a dozen times. ' Yet one witness said that the West Coast Motors did not cross over half a dozen times altogether. The Board said that Air Hannan had said that the West Coast Motors did at least 30 trips in three months. Recalled, the witness, Roberts, maintained that the West Coast service cars did not pass over the Taipo bridge more than half a dozen times during the season. All* Hannan: How many cars passed over daily?—From eight to ten. Witness- said he took particular notice as he had to see that cars did not drive into wires nearby while the bridge was under repairs. The Board then retired, and upon resumption His Honour said that the Centi’al Licensing Authority had heard the application of AVest Coast Alotors for a seasonal license. At the ordinary hearing they were not satisfied as to the regularity with which the service would be run, and documentary evidence was requested in the way. of running sheets, or waybills. On the production of these the license was granted.

“That decision has been attacked to-day,” continued His Honour. “Newmans have given a mass of evidence as to the irregularity of the service conducted by the West Coast Motors. The Board has the definite evidence of Harcourtg Motors that the latter had conducted a moro regular service than West Coast Motors, yet their application was refused. We harve the evidence of Fairlip who is positive that respondent Company ran only six or seven trips last season, and Pope and Dew, both independent witnesses, are also quite positive that the service was very intermittent. There is the evidence of the other independent witnesses, Roberts and McLaren, who have explained that a motor could not pass the Taipo bridge unobserved, and also positive that the trip was not run more than six or seven times. Roberts was recalled to corroborate his evidence which had been questioned. “It is possible that the witnesses for Newmans, including the drivers might have missed seeing respondent’s cars some days, but it is not likely that they would miss seeing four-fifths of the total runs on this) route. It is practically’ an impossibility. As far as the Public Works witnesses are concerned it is .unlikely that they would miss more than a trip or two. Yet all the witnesses for the appellant company tally to the exent that they claim only half a dozen trips were made by respondent company.

“■\Ve have the evidence of Kerr and two drivers who say that practically a regular service was maintained, and that only eight and nine trips respectively were missed in two seasons. Their evidence does not tally with that of the other side. It may be said that they are interested parties, while it may al 9 o be said that Newman’s witnesses are also interested, but four of the latter are disinterested persons.

“A very large number of the entries in the waybills show signs of alteration. Why, is a matter for one to draw one’s own conclusion. Other entries show attempts at erasion. When running sheets are produced and the important entries bear marks of alteration and eila&ion, it casts suspicion on the evidence. No cash book was produced, which would have given greater weight unless it, too, bore sign* of alteration. ‘ ‘We are dissatisfied with the evidence of the running sheets, and cannot accept them as corroborative evidence. The appeal of Newmans Motors is allowed, and an order is made for respondent to pay fees and expenses.”