TRANSPORT APPEAL

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 431, 16 January 1933, Page 6

TRANSPORT APPEAL

BOARD SN ROTORUA APPEAL OF K MOTORS AGAINST NEWBY'S • LICENSE CASE PARTLY HEARD . The Transport Appeal Board sat in Rotorua on Saturday morning, Mr. Jurtl -e Fraz *r presidlng* with Messrs T. Jordsu; oirj Lisle Alderton. The c.fp'-ai ueait wAh was that of -RA' Motor Services, Rotorua, (Mr. . $!. H. Hampson) v. Newby's Motors, - Hamilton (Mr. W. J. King). ' On November 10 a license was i granted to Newby's Motors to run , from Auckland to Rotorua §.nd it was against this that "K" Motors appealed. Mr. Hampson said that the No. 3 i Authority had heard the various ap- ] plications for automatic licenses. One of these was for Messrs Lee and Young, but the board held that there ! was no eviderice of partnership be- j tween them. Lee's application wTas * granted but Young's refused. Lee then ' approached "K" Motors. The authority j had suggested the reduction of ser- j vices on the route. The R.M. had run i a service but had discontinued it as j .it did not pay. "K" Motors turned down a suggestion from the board that he and Lee should run alternate «»ays and should Lee abandon the service they should suceeed. Lee's license was granted but ha later abandoned c on the payment of £150 ex gratia. Later "K" Motors found that on Sunday afternoon they occasionally had to refuse passengers. They then made application to run larger cars. This was after Newby's license was granted and "K" Motors were allowed to run extra cars if necessary. Mr. Hampson then detailed the steps taken by "K" Motors to maintain its services. The company had kept complete reeords of its own and Newby's numbers of passengers carried. Mr. Hampson then informed the board of the dispute which had arisen between the chairman of the No. 3 Licensing Authority and himself. He claimed that the facts that he produced were evidence that the No. 3 Licensing Authority was not acting in its judicial capacity but "had favours to dispense." Evidience By Appellant Mr. Albert Kusabs, managing director of "K" Motors, gave evidence of the number of passengers carried by his service on the run in the period in question, showing that on many occasion he had spare seats available where he had found it necessary to put on an extra car. Since November 12 he had had a check made of the passengers carried by Newby's. He claimed that this showed an unnecessary mileage of 5740 miles run on the roads and resulted in a loss to his firm of about £107. The check had been taken from November 13 to December 31, 1932. With the exception of the 3.30 p.m. run to Hamilton on Sunday afternoon all the passengers could be carried by his service, and only occasionally had he found it necessary to put on an extra car on Sunday afternoon. Cross-examined by Mr. King, Mr. Kusabs said that as far as human nature could make them, his returns

werq correct, except on one occasion when an extra car was not entered in the way-biil hook in the record he had placed before the No. 3 authority. He cxplained that the Hamilton office had only made out a way bill for the nuhiti er of passengers and not for the number of cars. One of his staff had made a mistake in checkmg on or.e occasion only. He did not himself make the check of Newby's Motors, but they were made at the R.M. office and he could not say what pasengers were put down between Hamilton and the R.M. office, but according to its license a car was supposed to start with its complement of passengers from the office. Lee's Position Ray Lee, formerly running a service, gave evidence as to the suggestion made by the Licensing Authority that they should run tri-weekly, rnd which had been refused by "K" Motors. If there were not sufficient passengers he did not always run but made arrangements with "K" Motors to carry any on. He later saw that t would not be profitable to run every day and entered into an agreement with Kusabs and asked the licensing authority not to issue his license. He was then running the White Star Service with Newby. To Mr. King. If he had been called upon to run daily he would probably have had to run at a loss. His time table was not the same as the present application. At this stage the hearing was adjourned to Monday.