APPEAL UPHELD

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21554, 27 July 1933, Page 12

APPEAL UPHELD

RAILWAY BOARD'S ACTION AUOKLAND-DARGAVILLE LINK THROUGH MOTOR SERVICE LICENCE NOT JUSTIFIED An appeal against the decision of tho Central Licensing Authority in granting to Messrs Kneebone and Liltlo a licence to operate a motor service between Auckland and Dargavillo was mado by tho Railways Department betore the Transport Appeal J3oanl yesterday. Mr. Justico Frazer presided, and with him were associated Mr. L. Alderton, of Auckland, pud Mr. T. Jordan, of Masterton. Mr. Aickin, law officer of the RailWay Department appeared on behalf of the department, the appeal being supported by Mr. Haigli, who appeared on behalf of Messrs. Smith and Bradlev, proprietors of a motor service botween Paparoa- and Dargaville. and Dal both Brothers, who conduct a motor service connecting Tangowahino and Dargaville. Mr. Northcroft appeared for Messrs. Kneebono and Little. Mr. Aickin contended that tho decision of the licensing authority should be reversed and the licence not granted to respondent, as the co-ordinated rail And steamer service, together with tho existing motor-feeder services, were sufficient. Ho said tho co-ordination between tho rail and road and rail mid steamer services had worked smoothly for years. There was co-ordi-nation between tho railway and road at Paparon,- Whangarei and Tangowahino, and between the steamer and railway at Helensville. " Pioneers in the Area " It was claimed, further, that tho co-ordinated services were tho pioneers in the area and were superior to respondent's service, which did not commence until January, 1931. It might bo contended that if respondent's servico were taken off tho road Dargaville would be isolated on Sundays. Ho would submit that if Dargaville wero not served by rail on Sundays that did not warrant tho licensing of respondent to run all tho week. There wero also capital costs to bo considered, including the Helensville Wharf built at a cost of £12,000 and with an annual maintenance cost of £7O. Thero were two steamers, one of them running three days a week ' in the winter. In the summer tho other boat was added to the service. Henry White, secretary of the Kaipara Steamship Company, said he had been in that post for 30 years. Ho pro- ' ■ duced returns to show that in three months 1102 passengers were carried by the company's steamers. It was not true that drunkenness was permitted on board. Since his connection with the company there had been no complaint in that direction. Respondent's motor servico did not serve all the ports the steamers served. A largo proportion of the passengers carried bv the steamers comprised business men. Each steamer carried a crew of 12 and cost £I3P a month for coal. When new the vessels cost £20,000 each. Reduction in Service

To M:>-. Northcroft witness said about SO years ago there was a daily steamer service, but the reduced service dated from about tho time of the introduction of the railway. The .'coming of motors in later years had fe further effect on steamer tfaffic. $ Mr. Northcroft: Is there not some Reason for that? Is it not that tho •boats an; not as attractive as you say .they are? i' Witness: I would not say that. 2 Mr. Northcroft: The boats aro delightfully attractive ? Witness: Yes. ft Mr. Haigh suggested there was no Necessity for respondent's service. He jßaid the two services which he represented had been established for some spears and should lie protected against Respondent's service. He, quoted timetables to support his contention, d George William Bradley and John Elector Dalbeth, service car proprietors, !Jbf Dargayilb, gavo evidence concerning services run by them, pj To Mr. Northcroft, the latter witness said' he lind come to Auckland by l|ar. Mr. Northcroft: Why did you not sise this excellent co-ordinated service? <*; Witness: We could not get away on ytime. jj Mr. Northcioft: I see. It has its disjftdviintages, then, w Witness: Yes

Case For Respondent :m In outlining case, Mr. orthcroft submitted that Smith and and Dalbeth Brothers wero not competitors of his client. Ho |_%}iould have thought this was tho * . sfoeakest case tho Railway Department iould fight, because it had no service -letween Auckland and Dargaville, and «its policy was not to have one. In £bther words, there had been a declaration hy tlio department that the traffic j&t Dargaville was not worth going in pto get. but because by accident it had I a railway service near Dargaville and 'because there was a ragged motor serin existence it stopped in and alleged a great co-ordinated endeavour, ff The co-ordination did not amount to Ijnuch when all was said, said Mr. ■ ,|Korthcroft. Ho suggested it was nothing more than a lucre accidental ■■growth. The truth was that the Darfsgnville service had proved to be unsatisfactory. Instead of a great cokjprdination, he would suggest it was >*noro in the nature of an unholy alliance. By the interposition of his clients' :"feervice' Dargaville residents had been •'(enabled to get to Auckland, transact , jj-.alf a day's business and get bac>. to Dargaville having used only one and ' a-half days, compared with threo days by the so-called co-ordinated services. .Week-ends also had been catered for in a way not previously done. By usirg respondent's service Dargaville residents could reach Auckland in timo to catch the 3 p.m. express for tho South, whereas by the co-ordinated services they could arrive only in time to jcateh the limited express at 7 p.m. , h . Two Through Passengers Daily V Referring to the relationship between the Railways Department and the motor .'services associated with it in tho appeal, Mr. Northcroft said: "1 suggest the real sweetheart of tho department is Dalbeths." t Mr. Ai.ckin: Tut, tut. Don't mix / sweethearts and unholy alliances. Mr. Northcroft: Perhaps I am getting my metaphors mixed. Mr. Aickin: These passionato references 1 am not used to; Brief evidence was taken on behalf of respondent, and the board adjourned to consider the case. In delivering judgment, Mr. Justice Frazcr said the figures submitted indicated that a fraction over three passengers a day were carried each nay by the respondent's service. As nearly as possible, two of tho threo were through passengers from Auckland to Dargaville, or vice versa. Tho board had to consider whether an average of two through passengers plus a disproportionately largo number of parcels •was sufficient to justify a through service to Dargaville. - The decision of the majority of the board wai» that this was insufficient to / justify a through service being licensed. A passenger service was, of course, justified in carrying parcels, but parcels in themselves could not bo justification for issuing a passenger licence.