LICENSE REVOKED

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 434, 19 January 1933, Page 6

LICENSE REVOKED

ROTORUA-HAMILTON TRANSPORT APPEAL BOARD GIVES LONG DECISION K. MOTORS' APPEAL SUCCEEDS On Tuesday the Transport Appeal Board under the presidency of Mr. Justice Frazer, heard the balance of the case in which K Motors appealed against the action of the No. 3 Licensing Authority granting a license to Newby's Motors to run between Rotorua and Hamilton. After hearing evidence from both sides and the addresses of counsel the board delivered judgment granting the appeal and revoking Newby's license. A resume of the decision is as follows : — The essential thing that the Board has to consider is whether there is room on the road and whether it is in the interests of the public that an additional service should be run — not whether the White Star or the Aard is to have a connecting link. As a matter of fact, by means of coordination in the Wanganui district, there has been a linking up of the Aard and White Star organisations, but I do not say that they have amalgamated. They have come to some arrangement, and it is obvious that when the licenses expire at the end of the year several superfluous services will be cut out, in which case the Aard and White Star must come to' some understanding. It may be that an Aard service will be put off on one route, and a White Star service may be dropped somewhere else. But if there are too many services over any partieular route, Section 26 requires the Licensing Authorities to refuse licenses to the services that it considers superfluous. Now as regards this present case there does not seem to be the slightest doubt that the dispute is not so much between the K. Motor Service and Newby's Service as between the White Star and the Aard organisat:on. It is a fight between the two organisations to have a link between Rotorua and Hamilton, and the board has to decide whether there is room for an extra service on the route. From the figures submitted, it dpes not appear there is room for an extra service. We have pretty complete

figures now, and it certainly seems that two cars ought to be able to earry the passengers offering. i The matter ehiefly investigated by the No. 3 Licensing Authority, and the matter that has been very largely brought before us, has been a complaint that the K Motor Service has not run in accordance with its license. It is strongly suggested that the K Motor Service, although authorised to run two cars, frequently ran only one and turned away passengers who were willing to book. There seems to be cvidence to support this complaint. All we can say is that there is evidence to substantiate the sugg-estion that K. Motor Service has been running very economically. That is to say — they would not put on two cars unless they had something like two car loads. They would not put on two cars if there were only one or. two additional passengers. If the No. 3 Authority had held a public enquiry and had dealt with the K. Motor Service and had taken away the K. Motor Service license, then it would have been quite in order for it to consider an application by Newby's Motors, Ltd., for a license for the Rotorua-Hamilton route. It did not do so. We are taking no notice. whatever of the suggestions that have been niade that the No. 3 Authority has shown partiality. There really is not any proof of that. We simply say this: That the No. 3 Authority should have dealt with any complaints about. K. Motor Service not running according to its license by means of a public enquiry under Section 36. As it stands, it appears that the No. 3 Authority has accepted the evidence that the K. Motor Service has not run its two cars as it should have done, and when it should have done, as a reason for granting the license to a service, which on the figures, appears to be unnecessary. This is not a function of the No. 3 Authority. It is not supposed to license more services than are necessary, and desirable, in the public interests, and just because K. Motor Service committed a breach 1 of its license by not running two cars when it should have done, it appears to have granted an unnecessary license to Newby's Motors, Ltd., when the granting of sueh a license does not appear to have been in the public interest. The public intei'est would have been served by keeping the K. Motor Service up to the mark by fining or penalising it, or by can-

cemng its license altogether, and granting a new license to Newby's Motors. It seems quite wrong for No. 3 Licensing Authority to give two separate licenses to two firms, when there is only suffieient traffic for one license. The appeal is allowed accordingly to appellant, and the appellant is alowed £5 5s costs, and an order is made that the respondent refund to the appellant £5, filing fee.