BUS DISPUTE

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 61, 3 June 1927, Page 9

BUS DISPUTE

COMPANY V. COUNCIL

COMPULSORY PURCHASE QUESTION OF COMPETITION Whether the G.O.C. buses ran in substantial competition with the City Council trams under the provision of the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act was argued as a preliminary point in the Supreme Court yesterday. The Mount Eden Motor Bus Company, Ltd., proceeded against the Auckland City Corporation, calling on that body to take over the buses of the General Omnibus Company, a branch of the Mount Eden company, and claiming £35,485 as compensation under the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act. The case for the company was conducted by Mr. Meredith and Mr. Armstead, and the City Council by Mr. A. H. Johnstone and Mr. Stanton. The Hon. E. W. Alison, assessor for the company, and Mr. G. R. Hutchinson, assessor for the City Council, were associated with Mr. Justice Herdman in the hearing. The council declined to take over the buses on the ground that they were not run in competition with the trams.

COUNCIL'S OBJECTION Mr. Meredith stated that the claim was made under the provisions of the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act, and the preliminary point would be argued oj whether there was substantial competition between the vehicles of the two parties on May 7, 1926, the date mentioned in. the Act, which the council denied. The company had required the council to take over, on November 11, 1926, and the council had taken until December 21 to reply, declining to do so. Evidently the council had doubts whether it could reasonably sustain an objection. The whole cause of the delay was official, interposed Mr. Johnstone. The company's claim related to 36 buses which were running to various outlying parts of the city, and for the most part along tram routes. The council had taken over the Mount Eden buses without demur, but would not accept the buses on the Grey Lynn and Mount Albert routes, though these were similarly situated. SERVICE MAY CEASE Evidence would be adduced to show that there was competition on these routes. The fact was obvious that these sparsely populated suburbs could not support a bus service and that the service was dependent on passengers picked up between the city and the tram terminus. Running every ten minutes along the tram line the buses were getting considerably over 50 per cent, of the traffic. Questioned by His Honour as to what would happen in the event of the council not taking over, Mr. Meredith stated that the service could not go on. His Honour: Because of some limitation under the Statute? Mr. Meredith: The twopence extra has been put on so that we are practically prohibited. His Honour: Even though you are not in substantial competition? Mr. Johnstone: The company could charge a proper economic fare. That was a euphemistic way of putting it, said Mr. Meredith, but if the people served could not pay that economic fare the service would end. The twopenny penal fare precluded the company picking up passengers along the tram route. The present legislation had caused 13 buses to be laid up. On the routes in question tram fares were reduced when the the buses began, but when the Omnibus Act came in the buses were pushed out and the tram fares were raised again. That showed that they were serious competitors. Drivers would say that 75 per cent, of passengers were picked up along tram routes, but that was over now. THE PENAL FARE George Grey Campbell, manager of the General Omnibus Company, gave evidence as to the routes run and the instructions issued to compete with the trams for passengers. The company could never have built up v such a fleet if it had not catered for passengers along tram routes. He estimated that when the penal fare came into operation in November last, the company lost £7OO in fares the first month. They immediately reduced the number of buses running. The company had now 18 buses running to timetable and seven on sepcial trips. They had no ticket system because it caused delay and their business was to keep ahead of the trams. Cross-examined by Mr. Johnstone, witness said he had no record of where passengers joined and left the buses, for it would be impossible to keep such a record. At a certain hour of the day the trams were supplemented threefold to meet the bus competition on the Mount Eden route and on Manukau Road. He suggested that if the council found that the buses were not in competition with the trams it should not raise an objection to buses picking up passengers along the tram routes. Then the company would drop its claim.

After discussion the further hearing of the case was set down for June 28.