BUS WITH HISTORY

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 322, 5 April 1928, Page 14

BUS WITH HISTORY

STANLEY BAY SERVICE LICENCE

DEFECT IN REGULATIONS

Another defect in the Motor-omnibus Regulations was revealed at the meeting of the No. 2 Omnibus Licensing Authority at Devonport last evening, when a bus (concerning which the chairman remarked that the Public Works Department did not seem to have a high opinion) was found to have been specified in bus service licence applications at both Birkenhead and Stanley Bay. Both, applications had been granted at a previous meeting of the Licensing Authority. The Act and the regulations made under it are silent on the question of multiple applications for licences in different places with the same vehicle.

Last evening Messrs. R. H. Hustler and N. J. Young made an application for a service to Glen Road (Stanley Bay) from Devonport wharf. They declared that? they had pioneered the present motorette services, and had objected to the issue at the previous licensing meeting of a licence on the same route t o an employee of Mr. Young. Mr. A. V. Fraer, on behalf of Mr. A. B. Bearsley, the present licensee, objected to the application on the grounds that (1* it was not in order, (2) the business offering did not warrant two services, (3) that the proposed time-table was not adequate. The applicants offered to run their present cars until there was sufficient business to justify the purchase of a bus. To buy one now would mean certain bankruptcy.

The chairman, Mr. E. Aldridge, then detailed the information that Bearsley’s bus was the basis of a previous application for a service at Birkenhead. It had a “history,” and though passed by the Public Works engineer, its carrying capacity was fixed at 16 passengers.

Mr. J. H. Lynch, of Birkenhead, related that Mr. W. B. Watson and himself had jointly obtained a licence for the Birkenhead route, but though the service had been commenced, and concession cards been sold, the bus had been taken away by the owner, Mr. Watson, on Sunday, and transferred to Stanley Bay in readiness to run there. Mr. Fraer said that his client, Mr. Bearsley, was not concerned with the “history.” He asked for his legal right -the issue of the omnibus licence for his bus. It had been passed by the engineers, and the heavy traffic and insurance regulations had been complied with. He claimed that his client had pioneered the Stanley Bay run, and Messrs. Young and Hustler had attempted to “force Bearsley off the road.” This was partially denied. The bus licence was issued to Mrs. Bearsley. On the technical ground that their application did not state the omnibuses or seating capacity to be used on the route, the application of Messrs. Young and Hustjer was refused. Mr. T. Walsh suggested that the applicants ask for an adjournment, end leave to amend their application, but the proposal was declined.

Mr. Aldridge said he personally was in favour of “freedom of the road ” “Must we get off the road ? Are we sacked?” asked Mr. Hustler. It was pointed out that provided not more than six passengers were carried in the cars they were exempt from the Omnibus Licensing Regulations. They would be subject to Devonport borough by-laws. Mr. Lynch wanted to know- his posiwas advised to consult his solicitor. Drivers’ licences were issued to Messrs. Watson and Bearsley.