NEW TRANSPORT LICENCES

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24910, 25 June 1946, Page 4

NEW TRANSPORT LICENCES

NEED SEEN FOR MORE 'EXACT EVIDENCE CRITICISM BY APPEAL ’ AUTHORITY “Time and time again I can’t make out why the Transport Authorities don’t get more exact evidence—they seem to be satisfied with a vagtte mass of material thrown at them haphazardly,” said the Transport Appeal Authority (Sir Francis Frazer) during the hearing of a case in Christchurch yesterday. After making his remarks, which he described as quite general, he said that Mr T. P. Cleary (counsel for Mid-Canterbury Tr; asport, Ltd.) had raised the point and he thought it opportune to make the general remarks which he had been itching to make for some time.

Mu Cleary contended that the evidence that already appeared did not make out a case for the granting of five further licences to Burnetts Motors and that it was incumbent upon the applicant to show two things:—first, that further vehicle authorities were needed in the Ashburton county; second, that the measure of the present inefficiency of licences was five.

“I agree with you that you should have the opportunity to say it now,” said Sir Francis to counsel. “I have been struck time after time with the paucity of evidence before the Authorities and upon which they act. If I were that Authority I would probably not grant half the licences asked for unless'l had fuller evidence.”

The mass of general evidence indicated that something more in licences was required, but there was usually not a tittle of evidence to show that one, two, three, four, or five were required. Sometimes it was mighty hard to see how the Transport Authorities«found a basis for granting a particular number of vehicle licences on the very vague general evidence before them.