TRANSPORT CONTROL

Wairarapa Times-Age, 28 October 1942, Page 2

TRANSPORT CONTROL

AUTHORITY DISAPPROVES APPLICATION EVIDENCE OF WITNESS QUESTIONED. EXCHANGES AT MASTERTON SITTING. Stating that he could not believe a witness’s evidence, Air P. Skoglund, No. 2 Transport Licensing Authority, expressed strong dissatisfaction with an application before him at a sitting of the authority in Masterton yesterday afternoon. The application was for a transfer of a goods service licence from E. T. Waters and Son to I. Allen and Son, Ltd., Masterton. Mr Skoglund reserved his decision pending further enquiry into Mr E. T. Waters’s financial returns. The sitting, which occupied several hours was marked by sharp exchanges between Mr T. Jordan, who represented I. Allen and Son, and Mr J. Macfarlane Laing who opposed the i application on behalf of Transport (Wairarapa), Ltd. Mr Laing said that the Transport company opposed the application with diffidence. Regretably, he added, publicity given sittings of the authority reacted unfavourably to the company as an impression existed that the company was a combine to exploit the farmers of the district. It had been stated at a previous session that the company was exploiting the people for its own benefit. Mr Laing said the company was formed to eliminate uneconomic running and to save petrol and tires, etc. He traced the company’s development, stating that it had brought up certain licences and then had them cancelled to ration transport in the district. He added that anything which was detrimental to the war effort should be stepped. The formation of Transport (Wairarapa) Ltd. was a war effort. Mr Laing said that in the evidence he would produce to show that the company’s war effort was being hampered, certain farmers would be mentioned and he asked that the Press be directed to suppress the names.

Mr T. Jordan: “It is a dangerous thing to do. The Press is the only means by which the farmers will know what is said or done.”

Mr Skoglund said that, he had no power to suppress the names, but he would leave it to the good offices of the Press.

Mr Laing alleged that the company’s war effort was being nullified by farmers who felt they were not getting a good enough service and required uneconomic special trips to be run. The public had to put up with a certain amount of inconvenience and it was not asking too much that it should be carried as far as the carriage of goods was concerned.

Mr Skoglund: “There is a transport control committee set up for dealing with such cases.”

Mr Laing said the control committee was only just commencing operations in the district.

Mr Skoglund observed that the control committee could order how trucks should be operated. Operators had the right of appeal to the licensing authority. Mr Laing proceeded to trace the history of operations of Allen and Son. Mr Jordan protested that Mr Laing’s submissions did not bear on the business before the authority.

Continuing, Mr Laing said that his submissions did have a bearing on the case. He slewed how Allen and Son’s business hdtf expanded, as had its transport licences and said that the present application was a backdoor way of adding to the licences already held. He mentioned negotiations which had taken place between Transport (Wairarapa) and F. E. Allen. Mr Jordan protested strongly against Mr Laing’s remarks, asserting that he was bringing in a “private feud.” Continuing, Mr Laing said that I. , Allen and Son had its own petrol pump at Waingawa and had the opportunity of using petrol for purposes which 1 ether carriers could not. “That is outside my control,” said Mr Skoglund. Mr Jordan entered an emphatic protest against what he termed “mud slinging” and added that Mr Laing s remarks were not fair. _ Mr Laing said that a licence in Waters's hands was a different thing to a licence in Allen and Son’s hands. Mr Jordan contended that Mr Laing . was attempting to make a personal attack on his client, even to tne extent ' of suggesting the misuse of petrol is- , sued oy the oil aiid fuel controller and , ms committee. . i Mr Skoglund said that any misuse of : petrol was a matter for another department. All he was concerned with was whether or not a goods service licence ’ should be transferred to Allen and Son. Mr Laing contended that Waters s licence was dormant and said he would bring evidence to show that it would ‘ not be in the public interest to grant the application. , Evidence was given by Mr J. W. Thorn ton Junr., a member of Transport (Wairarapa) Ltd. Mr Skoglund said that it-would be better if witness did not mention names. In the course of his evidence Mr Thornton alleged that in the Stronvar district Allen and Son had made a special trip out to bring’ in wool; yet the Transport Company had a regular mail and goods service on that run. He cited a similar case concerning a chimney wlncn was carted to the Mangapakeha Valley, despite the fact that his company s service was operating on that run. In the course of Mr Thornton’s evidence Mr Jordan protested that Mr Laing was putting words into the witness’s mouth. ■ Mr Skoglund said Allen and Son were legally entitled to make the trips. The Transport Control Committee, however, would eliminate uneconomic running. . . , ~ Mr Thornton stated., in giving further evidence, that rationing transport was reacting against his company. Evidence was given by Mr E. 1. Waters. He stated that his licence had been taken over by Allen and Son. last December, pending the hearing of the transfer. A long cross-examination regarding witness’s business returns followed. s Mr Skoglund (to witness): -Allen and Son have operated your business since December; has any revenue since then been paid to you?”—Witness: “No.” “And any profits made on the operations have been kept by Allen and Son?”—“Yes.” “Yet you have heard Mr Jordan say on behalf of Allen and Son that they operated as your agent' —Witness: “Yes.” Mr Skoglund: “The business was taken over in December and it has been run illegally ever since.” Mr Jordan said that he had heard of carriers taking over licences and operating them strictly as agents until transfers had been granted and in this case he thought his client was a bona fide agent. . Following further cross-examination regarding his earnings, Mr Waters said I hat he'clid not know how much he earned as an accountant did his books. In reserving his decision Mr Skoglund added that the application had not been al all .satisfactory.