NEWTOWN HOTELKEEPERS.

Gisborne Times, Volume X, Issue 987, 5 September 1903, Page 2

NEWTOWN HOTELKEEPERS.

AGAIN BEFORE THE COURT.

JUDGMENT RESERVED,

Per Press Association. Wellington, last night.

Al! hotelkcc-pc-is in Newtown Licensing District, five in number, were again before Dr McAnhur, Stipendiary Magistrate, this morning, eaeh being charged in two informations (1) with soiling liquor without being licensed to do so, and (2) with exposing liquor for sale without being licensed. Tiro names of the defendants arc, Francis Smith, Patrick Gorbov, William Hailey, Hubert Barclay, and William Bedmond. Prior to going on with the case counsel announced that all points in regard to preliminary proceedings in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal in regard to the issue of licenses" were admitted, and further, that each of the defendants admitted the statement contained in tho information against him in regard to haviDgsold aud exposed liquor for sale. The only authority under which the defendants claimed to sell liquor was that the applications for renewals of licenses had not been disposed of by the Licensing Committee. Counsel for the police said the Committee disposed of tho applications by refusing renewals on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction. If the principle suggested by the defence was really founded upon authority it would mean that a licensee who was couvieted three times could continue to sol). In England, by special provision, tho Commissioner of Inland Revenue had power to permit licenses to bo carried on pending appeal, but do similar provision existed here. The prosecution asked the Magistrate to say that the publicans were selling liquor without a lie-, use, and it must bo stopped. A heavy penalty was not asked for on this occasion, but it must be understood that if

tbs offence was continued tbo full penalty would be pressed for in subsequent cases. Counsel for defendants claimed that the 'licenses hid been extended oy virtue of section 23 of the Incensing Act, in which ho specially emphasised the words “ finally disposed of.” The expression, “adjourn,” was not used. It did not speak of adjournment of the application, and it did not extend the license during a period of an adjournment. If the application was ultimately granted by the direction of the Privy Council the renewal would date from the period of the expiry by effluxion of time c£ the original application to the committeo. Counsel wend on to elaborate the legal aspect of the position that had now arisen. The course the defence asked the Magistrate to adopt was the very course adopted in the appeal proceedings. Publicans were appealing in one case to the Privy’ Council, and in the other cases they had lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal. It had been agreed that when the decision of the Privy Council was given such decision shall decide the fato of the four cases in the Court of Appeal. The same course was adopted in any civil proceedings. The Court decided one case, and practically reserved its decision in the pending cases until the result of the appeal was known. Dr McArthur said that ho would givo judgment on Monday.