SERVICE TO AROHENA

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 54, Issue 3895, 28 April 1937, Page 7

SERVICE TO AROHENA

PASSENGERS OR GOODS. OBJECTION TO APPLICATION. The possibility of the Transport Licensing Authority requiring a passenger vehicle to be placed on the Te Awamutu-Arohena service, as distinct from the better known goods services, was indicated at Tuesday’s sitting of the Authority in Te Awamutu. When the name “T. H. Kelly” was called, applicant stood up in the body of the Court, and the Authority asked him to enter the witness box as “he desired to have a talk.” Kelly, in answer to questions, said he held three vehicle authorities, one of which en titled him to carry up to twenty passengers on his goods vehicle. It was really a combined license. Mr Phelan remarked that it seemed to him that the authority was not so much a goods license as a passenger license that was required. He thought Kelly should really apply for a passenger service. Kelly said there was not enough business offering to warrant a straight out passenger service being operated between Arohena and Te Awamutu, even if there was no opposition at all, at the fares fixed by the Authority. To Mr Walsh, Kelly said he was not a member of the Waipa Master Carriers’ Association, but was willing to join that body. He had at one time thought of joining the Matamata District Association, as he was also operating in that body’s territory. However, he would join Waipa.

Mr Phelan commented that he would grant the license with more pleasure now that he knew Kelly would join the association, though it should be realised that joining was not a condition of issuing the license. To Mr Phelan, applicant said he would like to submit an amended schedule of passenger fares —after he had been protected by the Authority from unfair competition. The Authority knew that there was unfair competition; but so far as he could find there had been no action taken to prevent that competition. The Authority, commenting on another aspect of the position, said he knew of no other goods service in his territory that has had a license granted, providing for the carriage of more than four or five passengers per trip. When it was added that applicant had permission to carry up to twenty passengers, Kelly replied that the Authority that granted that permission "seemed to be very generous.” (Laughter.) The Authority decided to issue a license to Mr Kelly for two years from the date of expiry of the existing license (last May), Mr Phelan remarking that applicant should seriously consider applying for a passenger license with respect to his special vehicle. “You could then carry people under decent conditions. It you don’t apply someone else may.” Mr Kelly: I appreciate that fact, sir, and will accept the advice. Later in the day L. E. Moore applied for permission to convey some passengers on his goods vehicles. Mr Walsh explained that Moore had been approached by certain workers at the camp saying they did not wish to travel by the existing passengergoods service. To questions, Mr Walsh said that aspect could be investigated at the Authority’s convenience. Mr T. H. Kelly opposed the application; and asked for particulars in support of the statement.

Moore told of one camp worker with an injured leg who travelled back with Kelly, and when he was asked to take him up a side road Kelly retorted: “No, you get Moore to take you!” Moore contended that he traversed a different route.

Kelly said the injured man referred to had been conveyed to oblige the Kihikihi hotelkeeper. The passenger had been ejected from the hotel and .sustained a sprained ankle in the process. On the trip the passenger had abused him almost all the way. Moore disputed this statement. Kelly went on to state that 13 settlers in the district had abandoned their holdings, thus lessening the need for an extra service. He was equipped and able to do all the business offering—without working on Sundays or more than a five day week. To questions, Moore said he carted at night, conveying posts, battens, manure, etc. Kelly said Moore had a “loose leg” with the P.W.D. He had not been asked by Moore to help him in rush times. Moore: And I wouldn’t ask you to! Kelly stated that there was absolutely no need for an extra vehicle authority, without night or Sunday work. Mr Walsh said Moore had covered 42,000 miles in the past ten months. Moore said he ran two shifts regularly, and at times worked the 24 hours through. Mr Walsh contended that Moore serviced people who were not catered for by Kelly. He had given good service, and had two vehicles on the road. It was for the second vehicle that he now asked for an authority. To questions, Moore said he had enough work without the cream contract. He had been operating in the district for four years. He was not seeking a monopoly of P.W.D. work. To the Authority, Kelly said he averaged only two .P.W.D, jobs in the past four years.

The Authority said he would grant the extra vehicle authority, but not for additional passengers. However, Kelly should provide for the passenger service in a more adequate manner. The renewal would be granted for three years from the expiry date of the existing license (last May) but his area was extended somewhat.