THE RIGHTS OF LICENSEES

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2636, 19 October 1909, Page 5

THE RIGHTS OF LICENSEES

AN IMX’ORTANX decision,

TPisti Press association. l WELLINGTON, Oct. 18=. , The Court of Appeal to-day heard tlie' case of Sarah Mulhan v. Ashburton Licensing Committee and G, H. Mann, objector to renewal. It is a motion foil a mandamus, removed by consent to tlie Appeal Court. Plaintiff was licensee of an hotel in a portion of the Geraldine district, which was included at last election in the Ashburton electorate. Restoration was not carried, arid when plaintiff appled for a renewal of the license it was refused on the ground that the committee bad no jurisdiction. Mi’. Hosking appeared for tlie plaintiff and Mr. Adams for defendants. The former contended that in the Newtown case the Privy Council had decided'that no license should be taken away till the voters had so decided. In this place no proposal was carried, therefore the last valid' vote, namely that in tlie old Geraldine district, remained in force. The poll did not prohibit the granting of licenses, and the committee therefore had jurisdiction to grant a renewal. Continuing his argument in the appeal case, Mr. Hosking said that under section 106 of the Act every licensee had an absolute right of renewal, not for three years, but for an indefinite time',-subject to the licensing pells and the discretionarv powers of the Licensing Committee. Every valid poll had effect till, superseded by a subsequent valid poll. Mr. Adams contended that the words of section 8 of the Licensing Act were absolutely clear, and to give effect to the argument of the .plaintiff the Court must strike the proviso of that section out of the statute, although' it was put in after the Newtown case expressly to meet such a case as this.

At this stage" the Court stopped Mr. Adams, and Mr. Ilosking having briefly replied, the Court unanimously dismissed tlie motion with costs on the middle scale, and as from a distance. Justice Williams said that there was no doubt that the law was harsh and jxissiblv unexecuted, bu't it was too clear for the Court to be able to avoid giving effect to it. Leave was granted to appeal to the Privy Council. •