LICENCE REFUSED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21560, 3 August 1933, Page 12

LICENCE REFUSED

, TRANSPORT APrEAL AUCKLAND TO WAIUKU MOTOR-CARS AND RAILWAY BOARD RESERVES DECISION The hearing was concluded before the Transport Appeal Board yesterday of tho appeal by Frederick George Parker, motor service proprietor, of "\Vaiuku, against tho. decision of the No. 2 Licensing Authority in refusing him a licence to conduct a through soj'vico between Waiukn and Auckland. ■ Appellant had declined an offer of coordinating his service with the railway at Pftpakura. Mr. Justico Frazer presided, associated with him being Mr. T. Jordan and Mr. L. Alderton. Percy Vivian Flexman, service car proprietor, of Waiukn, who had accreted an offer to co-ordinate his ser-vi-e with the railway at Papakura, snid lie would bo able to cater for tho traffic served by appellant if ho were gi .en "tho right to make a minor deviation in his route. Ho considered ho eo'ild cater for all tho traffic offering. Ho had voluntarily accepted tho offer of co-ordination. Thero was no coercion attached to tho arrangement. If appellant wero permitted to run through to Auckland, it would make the position difficult for witness. To Mr. Henry, who appeared for appellant, witness said appellant's service was not the pioneer service on the route, although it had started a year b'eforo his own. In tho last licensing year witness' servico had carried 4692 passengers, an average of 12 a day. The majority of people ho had spoken to about co-ordination had been against it. Loss on the Railway To Mr. Alderton, witness said that, although appellant carried more passengers than ho did, witness sccurod tho Majority of tho through passenHo was sure that as work progressed at the Kingseat Mental Hospital ho would got more passengers. Mr. Aickin, who opposed appeal on behalf of tho Railways Board and who also appeared for Flexman, said he had quoted the operating loss on the Waiuku branch railway for the year ended March 31, 1933. as £2596. 'lo this should be added tho unpaid interest on the capital cost. The capital cost of the lino was £208,909, the interest bill being £8768. Tho total , loss, therefore, was £11,364. From this should.be taken the feeder value to the main line, £1690, leaving a net loss of £9674. It was suggested by Mr. Aickin that the residents of the district served by the lino wero under an obligation to tho taxpayers of the Dominion as a whole to use the line. This, he submitted, was a consideration relevant to the issue of public interest when the board weighed the balance of benefit in favour of the public. Mr. Henry said the success of appellant's service was shown by the figures. Ho had rightly opposed joining a co-ordinating schemo with two motor services running. It still remained to be proved that a feeder service could be successfully conducted. 'A through service by car had proved very popular. His Honor: We grant you that. It always is, otherwise we would not hear bo many protests. . Other Appeals

Mr. Henry submitted that appellant was entitled to a licence enabling him to conduct a through service, or at least to a licence enabling him to coordinate on the same terms as offered to frjexman. Ilisi Honor said another group of appeals had to be heard respecting the Pu.kekohe and Bombay services. The same question of co-ordiDation was raised. He realised there were distinctions between those cases and the present case, and he did not wish it implied that a decision on one case would affect the others, but a decision on the present case would bo given after the others had been heard. There was a peculiar complication in Parker's case, as he did not appeal against the granting of a licence to Flexman. Had that heerj done, the board would have had all the facts before it do novo. As it was, Flexman had a licence unassailable for a vear.