OMNIBUS LICENSES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20039, 4 March 1927, Page 10

OMNIBUS LICENSES.

APPEAL BEFORE BOARD., WELLINGTON-HUTT SERVICE. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, March 3. A strong indictment against the City Council for its glorious inconsistency wa* made to-day by Mr Watson, counsel for the bus proprietors in the case before the Transport Appeal Board against the granting to Harold Ingham. Petone, of a license to establish a service between Lower Hutt and Wellington. Counsel said that Ingham applied in October last year for a license to run two buses. This was opposed, the whole argument turning on the point whether the existing facilities were adequate. The application was refused and notice of appeal was given, but somehow a was given by the City Council,' and the application was granted. The bus proprietors appeal, and the board allowed the appeal, with the result that Ingham lost his two licenses. The board put it* reasons in writing, stating that it was satisfied the services to the Hutt Valley were ample. Almost immediately after the Christmas holidays Ingham applied for six licenses instead of two, and these were granted. Counsel said the licensing work was a side-line to the By-laws Committeeone might almost say a sideshow. He asked the court to come to a conclusion. The council was bound by the court. Mr Wilford, for Ingham, protested that they were not sitting in judgment on the council, and suggested that Mr Watson should confine himself to the case. Mr Watson said that he never contended the proprietors should have a watertight monopoly, but they were entitled to protection under the Act. , After retiring the board ruled that where •a judgment was reviewed by the Appeal Court, the judgment of the Appeal Court must stand. Mr Justice Frazer said there must be an end to litigation of this kind, and m the ordinary circumstances, the decision of the Appeal Board should be final for a rewonable time. In the present instance there were one or two circumstances that took the case out of the general rule, and it waa proposed to call evidence on the following points; — . . 1. Any change in circumstances since affecting t], o new area proposed to be served. 3. Evidence as to poak-hour load.