“SLEPT ON HIS RIGHTS”

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 653, 3 May 1929, Page 11

“SLEPT ON HIS RIGHTS”

TRANSPORT APPEAL FAILS BIRKENHEAD SERVICE As appellant had not run the kind of service specified in his licence, the No. 2 Motor Omnibus District Appeal Board yesterday upheld the decision of the licensing authority, the Devonport Borough Council, in refusing Russell Ingham, of Albany, a licence to run a bus service between Birkenhead and Albany, and in granting a licence to Messrs. Lynch and Halliday, of Birkenhead. Mr. Justice Fraser presided, and there were with him Mr. A. E. Greenslade, representing the local authorities in the district, the Hon. E. W. Alison, representing the motor-bus proprietors, and Mr. L. B. Campbell, district Public Works engineer. Ingham appealed against the decisions of the authority in refusing him a licence and granting one to Lynch and Halliday. Mr. Hubble appeared for Ingham and Mr. Fraer for Lynch and Halliday. A service was at present being run by Ingham between the Birkenhead Wharf and Albany, two seven-seater motor-cars being used, said Mr. Hubble. Lynch and Halliday ran a bus service between the wharf and Pupuke Road, on Ingham’s route. Ingham did not compete with this service. In February, 1928, Ingham had taken over the Albany mail contract from the Marine Suburbs Bus Company, and had continued with it ever since. When he began, the Waitemata County Council was reconstructing the road, making it impossible to use a bus. On being granted a bus licence in the following May, Ingham had promised to put on a bus which then was under construction. NOT CARRIED OUT This promise had not been carried out because the road was still in bad order, and Ingham feared competition from motor-cars, which could give a faster service under the conditions. The licensing authority had finally cancelled the licence. He made application again after making arrangements to obtain a new 26-passenger bus, at a cost of about £l,lOO, but Lynch and Halliday, having learned of his intentions, had put in their application a few days ahead. The licensing authority had decided against him by five votes to four. Appellant and several witnesses gave evidence, and a petition signed by 192 residents of Albany, asking for licence for Ingham, was produced. The reason for his clients applying for a licence, said Mr. Fraer, was that they washed to extend their service. He submitted that Ingham had neglected to put on a bus, so forfeiting his licence, because he had no competition on the route. He had approached the licensing authority again only when Lynch and Halliday applied, and the application was advertised. The road then was in quite good order, and had been so for four months. His Honour said that if Ingham had approached the licensing authority and asked for time, he probably would have been allowed to go on running the then service until the road was in a fit state to carry the bus. He had. however, written only a short letter saying that he feared competition from cars. Even so, he should have applied and offered to put on a bus as soon as possible. He had slept on his rights and had not run the kind of service specified in his licence, and the board could see no reason for upsetting the licensing authority’s decision.