APPEAL FAILS

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 374, 8 November 1932, Page 4

APPEAL FAILS

ROTORUA PETITIQ TRANSPORT BOARD ISSU LICENSE FOR WAIRAKI RUN 1 TE CHNIC ALIT Y WAlyg The sitting of the Transport! Board was xesumed at 10 a.m.^ day morning when the board t ered the appeal of "K". Motorsj ed (Mr. Hampson) against the ■of a passenger service' license Rotorua to Wairakei to the g. Motor Transp'ort Company ^ (My, Roe). In giving evidence Mr. A. f qtecretary to the respond,?^ pany stated that his compa'nj vice had been inaugurated at years ago and had been. rurniiis tinuously ever since, Owing error in the pfeparation of app'; form twoi licenses .were asked one application and for this the No. 3 Licensing Authority? ed the company to elect whicl cation should he proceeded yj the time the respondent . compa; not aware that , "K'( Motors I would he op-posing the applicag the Rotorua-Wairakei Iicensi therefore proceeded with thec: ■sight seeing trip, Rotorua-Tair return. When a separate apjl had been filed at the requ'est licensing authority the grani license had been opposed hy,"J tors Limited but the licensing! ity had granted a license utifl' tion 26 of the Transport Act, licensing authority had not i upon the fresh application heij an automatic license for the Wairakei would have been g Evidence was also given as number of passengers carried respondent company and snrH evidence was given hy the H manager, Tourjist Departmerjj Messrs Chambers and Harveyi® to the desirability of a licensiH granted to the respondent ctH to continue with the service. J nesses stated that they ccbflj that in the interests of tonriH travellers the 8.45 a.m. servitfl Rotorua to Wairakei was esse:® In giving judgment Mr, fl Frazer, the chairman, stated 9 appeared clear that if the J application had been in orderH first instance they w;ould granted an automatic license w run in question. The licensing® ity could have adjourned .the ||| tion to enahle further applieM he filed and then granted s:l| matic license. The appeal wa;B fore dismissed with' counsel'sB respondent company of £5 5,'B costs and witnesses' expenses® ing to scale. M