The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6,1893. THE LICENSING APPEALS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XIV, Issue 2891, 6 February 1893, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6,1893. THE LICENSING APPEALS.

The decisions in two very .'mportant licensing 1 cases were gi"en last week— the first and more important, the Sydenham case, in the Court of Appeal; and the second, tho lloslyn case, in the Supreme Court at Dunedin, The point at issue in each case was the same, and it has been asserted that the decisions were irreconcilable, but an examination of the two cases shows that the circumstances were widely different. The Sydenham case was an appeal by the prohibitionist members of the Sydenham Licensing Committee against Mr Justice Denniston's judgment in an application by a hotelkeeper to have the" proceedings in connection with his application for renewal of his license brought before the Supreme Court. His Honor granted the order, the conclusion he arrived at being—" That the Committee have been unable to bring a jndicial mind to the consideration of the question, and have, in fact, decided it on what have been, throughout the case, called Prohibition lines, and without due consideration of the actual requirements of the district." The refusal of the renewals was in fact part performance of a promise made by them, that if elected members of the Committee they would, in accordance with the principles of the society known as the Sydenham Prohibitionist League, close all licensed houses in the district. The Court of Appeal, consisting of all the Judges of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, with the exception of Mr Justice Dennis ton, has unanimously upheld the judgment, and the Chief Justice stated, for himself and his colleagues, that consideration of the evidence had satisfied them " that the Committee had acted on the general principle that under no circumstances ought licenses to be granted, not upon proper consideration of whether, under the particular circumstances, the licenses in question were required." The Committee began, it will be remembered, at the first annual meeting after their election, by refusing five of the eight applications for renewals, an application made to the Supreme Court to prohibit the Committee from adjudicating on the applications owing to the above pledge—being refused, though an order was made that in dealing with any objection to these applications " the licensing of premises was not required in the neighborhood," the Committee should not refuse applications on the ground only that the licensing was not required by a majority of the ratepayers and residents, and should consider whether such premises were required according to the reasonable wants of such of the residents as might desire to purchase liquor. With reference to three renewals which were granted the Committee intimated that they acted in conformity with Mr Justice Denniston's order, &t the next licensing meeting, the three persons who, in 189.1, had obtained licenses, applied lor renewals for the curreut year. To gach of these, the majority of the Committee refused renewals, on.the ground that licensed premises' were not required in the neighborhood. It yas I hot disputed that the Sydenham Committee are composed of the leaders of the Prohibition party, and therefore the conclusion cannot be avoided, the , Chief Justice thinks, thai; the object at)<i motive of their acjioft liave Usn

the destruction, and not the reputation, of the liquor traffic. In short the Appeal Court has maintained the evident intention of the Licensing Act, as expressed in its title, "to regulate the sale of liquor " —not to abolish it. The fact that the Act provides for the opinion of a district being obtained triennially on the question of an increase of licenses, while no provision i is made for an expression of a desire for a reduction of the number shows clearly that total prohibition was not contemplated^ and the only power given to committees .'s to carry out the law and to see that licensees also do so. The Roslyn case had this great difference, that no evidence was brought to show that the refusal of two licenses in 1391 was the result of bias. The burden of showing that a Licensing Committee have not exerercised their discretion rests on those who say they have not done so. The mere fact of closing the houses did not, in the judge's opinion, prove bias, as it is quite consistent with possibility that a committee might think licenses unnecessary in a suburb like Roslyn. Neither was there any evidence that the Committee had not come to a judicial decision in refusing the renewal of the remaining Jicen&e (Heffernan's) in 1892. In the meantime, indeed, the Committee had taken occasion to declare that since the decision of 1891 they did not consider themselves bound to act according to their election pledges to refuse all licenses, but to act with an open mind. There was a petition against the renewal of Heffernan's license, supported by sworn evidence j there was also a petition for renewal, but unsupported by sworn evidence, and not a single resident or ratepayer other tiian the licensee came forward to swear that the house was required. The Roslyn petitioners had thus an extremely weak case, and failed as utterly as the Sydenham petitioners., conclusively succeeded in proving bias on the part of the Committee. Still, that such cases come before the Courts shows the necessity for the amendment of the Licensing Law, that wo have advocated by making its terms more definite.