TRANSFER OF BUS ROUTE.

Waikato Times, Volume 102, Issue 17277, 13 December 1927, Page 8

TRANSFER OF BUS ROUTE.

ALLEGED TRANSACTION. SEQUEL IN COURT. HYDE AND JUBILEE SERVICES. In the Magistrate’s Court, Hamilton, this morning,, before Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M., T. A. Hyde, of the Watson Bus Company, claimed £65, allegedly due to him by Branton and Hodgson. Mr Strang appeared for the plaintiff, while the defendants were represented by Mr Swarbrick. Mr Strang pointed out that prior to Hyde leaving for Auckland to conduct /a service there he had entered into an agreement with the defendants that they pay him £75 for a transfer of his authority to run services in Hamilton East. This agreement had been made subject to the necessary authority being obtained. A deposit of £lO had been paid to the plaintiff, but the balance of the money was not forthcoming. It was for the recovery of the balance of this amount that proceedings had been taken.

T. A. Hyde, managing director of Watson’s Bus Company, stated that his company had held authority to run on two bus routes in Hamilton East. No other authorised omnibus service was running in competition with liirn. The gross takings were approximately £35 a week. He held the authority to run these services before the coming into operation of the Motor Omnibus Act. Mr Branton had seen him, when he considering moving his buses to Auckland, and inquired if lie was willing to transfer the Hamilton East runs to Hamilton. It was agreed between them that the transfer to run in Hamilton East would be given to Branton and Hodgson for £75. He had received £lO of the amount. Shortly afterwards he had received notification that he should give cause to show why his license should not be cancelled as be had broken the regulation by failing to keep to his advertised timetable. An application had accordingly been made to transfer the Hamilton East services to Messrs Branton and Hodgson. _ Cross-examined by Mr Swarbrick, Hyde was positive that he had told Branton that he had received notice of revocation. He was advised by lus solicitor to go and see Branton and place the position before him. When the first agreement was made there was no doubt in his mind that the transfer would be granted. Ihe first a°Tecment was that the money should be paid to him subject to the transfer being granted by the licensing authorities. His solicitor’s advice was that the licenses could be transferred. The balance, £65, was assigned t Tompkins and Wake in consideration of a debt and the application for transfer was made about the pame time. The case is proceeding.