YELLOW ’BUSES

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 15, 8 April 1927, Page 9

YELLOW ’BUSES

SMITH’S POSITION DEFINED STATEMENT BY SOLICITOR LICENCE MERELY AMENDED A definition of the present position of Mr. A. H. Smith, proprietor of the ellow Bus service on the North Shore is contained in a statement made by Mr. Leslie Alderton, solicitor, on behalf of Smith.

“As various statements have appeared in the Press from time to time, since the decision of the Transport Appeal Board, it is desirable that Smith’s position should be made public. The finding of the Appeal Board merely ordered an alteration to the route from Belmont-Devonport Ferry Landing to Belmont-Bayswater,” states Air. Alderton. “There is no necessity for Smith to go back to the licensing authority for any further licence. The licence is merely amended in accordance with the decision. The scale of fares and time-table remains as previously set out. As soon as the decision was made known, Smith was pursued by agents from the opposing company and eventually was prevailed upon to interview the manager and two of the directors of the company (one of whom was incidentally the solicitor to the company before he was perrnitedt to consult his own solicitor as to his exact position. Various documents and suggestions were put to him, and eventually he was prevailed upon to sign an announcement which was published in the Press. This was all done without giving him the opportunity of consulting his solicitor. “I do not propose at this stage to make any comment on the methods adopted to obtain this result. Air. Smith later on on Alonday conferred with me as his solicitor and informed me of the events which had transpired. He stated that he was given to understand that his licence was cancelled,

and that it was necessary to co-oper-ate in every respect with the opposing company. “On Air. Smith’s instructions I called upon Air. Brown and asked to be permitted to inspect the document which had been signed and those which had been put before him, but which he had refused to sign, and to my astonishment I was informed that no information whatever would be given to me nor would any documents signed or otherwise be produced for inspection. “I thereupon interviewed my client again and he gave me a written authority addressed to Alessrs. Bamford, Brown and Leary. “This was served upon the firm. As a result subsequent interviews and confeernces have been conducted through me. The understanding which has been arrived at verbally, is as follows: “RESTRICTIONS ON FARES” “Smith Is unable to run to any timetable other than set out in his licence, He will endeavour to conform to the running of the Ferry service to Bayswater, as far as possible and to cause as little inconvenience in any way to the public in connecting with his service. He cannot depart from l.is position, that he must conform with the terms of his licence. “His fares as provided by his licence, must also be conformed to. The through fares are necessarily increased by Is all round for 12-trip tickets. The through fare of 6s 6d for 12-trip tickets formerly charged represented 4s 6d retained by Smith and 2s paid to the Uevonport Ferry Company, whereas the Takapuna

Ferry Company’s fare is 3s for 12 trips. This increase is not an increase by Air. Smith but an increase by the Ferry service which completes the through journey. “The minimum fare for internal traffic of the borough now becomes 3d, as he is bound to charge 2d more than the tramway service in accordance with his license. “It was suggested to Air. Smith at his original interview, and has since been suggested to myself, that there would be no objection to Air. Smith charging less than this amount. This suggestion comes from the Takapuna Tram Company and the borough council. It is unfortunate that we cannot agree to either of these bodies arrogating to themselves the powers of a licensing authority, until we get permission from the licensing authority itself. TERMS OF THE LICENCE “ Smith is bound to conform to the terms of his license. The recommendation of the Transport Appeal Board’s decision provided for the establishment of a service between Belmont and Devonport to co-ordinate with the through service to Bayswater. Had this been more fully considered by the board, it would have appeared to them, as it is, in fact, impracticable to coordinate such services. It would be necessary for Smith to have an empty bus waiting at Belmont to meet his own service which runs to Belmont from Devonport. It is obviously absurd to suggest that Smith, running from Bayswater, and whose buses will be

almost Invariably filled at Bayswater, can in any way be said to co-ordinate with tlie service run to Belmont, as the passengers awaiting him at Belmont from Uevonport will invariably find a full bus. To suggest that Smith should have an empty bus to await such traffic is economically impossible. The Takapuna Tram Company and the borough council apparently properly recognise this position, and stated that they had no objection to through buses running between Takapuna and Uevonport to give effect to the Transport Appeal Board’s recommendation. This, of course, can only be granted by the No. 1 licensing authority. Smith is making immediate application for such a through service, and his application will be alternately to run a service from Devonport to Belmont, which is strictly in accordance with the Transport Appeal Board’s recommendation, or from Devonport to Alilford, which is the only practicable way to run the service. Unfortunately the Takapuna Tram Company demand that such service should be one to terminate at Calliope Road, which is some considerable distance from the Uevonport Wharf, which for all practical purposes is the centre of Devonport. Their objection, of course, being that no bus service be permitted to run sufficiently close to the wharf landing that such service may have any opportunity of connecting with any ferry trip run by the Uevonport Steam Ferry Company, Limited. The number of trips provided for this service, the scale of fares, the buses allowed, and the terminal points thereof, will, of course, be a matter for the licensing authority to decide at the hearing of Smith’s application.”