COURT OF APPEAL.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 641, 19 October 1909, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL.

. AN" IMPORTANT LICENSING CASE. FftQM ASHBURTON ELECTORATE. MAY GO TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL. An""Ashburton licensing case was heard before the Court of Appeal yesterday, the bench comprising their Honours Justices Williams (Acting-Chief • Jnstice), Denniston, Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman. Sarah Mulhern,..plaintiff, was licensee of a hotel in the Geraldino licensing district, and the defendants were Victor Grace Day and others, members of tho Ashburton Licensing Committee. George Henry Mann, who had oh, iccted to a renewal of plaintiff's license, was also made a defendant.

Mr. J. H. Hosidng, K.C., of Dunedin, with limMr. Johansen, appeared for plaintiff, nd Mr. A. S.' Adams, of Dunedin, for tho lefendant, Ifann. •..-, Tho case came in the form of a mandamus omoved into the Court of Appeal by consent nd by order of Mr. Justice Denniston. Prior o the last licensing poll, the boundaries of he electoral and" licensing districts thronghut the Dominion wcro altered by the repreentatiye commissioners, and a portion of tho Jeraldino .electorate, in which plaintiff's hoel..was. situated, was. transferred into the isnburton electoral district; At the licensing k>ll held in that district last November, under icction 38 of the Licensing Act, 100S, ttie prolosal.. to restore the licenses was not carried, it the annual meeting of tho Licensing Comaittee, plaintiff applied for a renewal , of her icense and was refused upon the , ground that he committee had no jurisdiction to grant the enowal. The ■ motion was for a mandamus o compel the committee to hear and deterlino tfie application. Mr. Uosking said that, under Section 10G of he Licensing Act, every licensee had an abolute right of renewal, not for three years, ut for an indefinite time, subject to the revisions relating to the licensing poll and a objections and the discretionary power f the committee. The result of the previoureensingpoll. in Gernldinc (continuance) had ffect until it was superseded by a subsequent alid : licensing poll. No other proposal had ieen'carried., There might.be licensed house! n a -no-license area, for Sections 12c and 3; xpressly contemplated such a possibility. The 3 irovidfd for the case of an invalid poll, aftei ■Inch tho same state of'things continued unti' . valid poll. took place. Mr. Justice lidwards: After all, it is ab tract justicfi. Why should the altering of eleo oral boundaries by comraissionere alter tlu lßhts nf publicans or anybody clso? Mr. Hosking went on to say that, if n . iroposal was carried, there was no valid licens ng , poll. Assuming the poll. to have beci irpporly described as valid, Section 24d an The Vresult" of a poll meant the stat ng of the voting, the finding of,the Return ng Officer, and not tho consequences. Ther ras. a-jested Parliamentary right to the re lewal.of a license, and words to.take the rmh ;way must be apt and clear. Mr. Adams contended that plaintiff, in orde o succeed; must satisfy the Court that Sectioi »n,T^V 1 ? C A erat,re - - n was im P° s siW6 to con the provision for submitting the twi Itiestions-.on. tho. restoration paper "was in ended to ascertain the number of votes agains estorahony ivith a view to requiring a three Mis majority to carry, that proposal to sa rfy. Section; 8.. Tho forms in the schedul rere_identicnl with those in- the Act of 1895 .nd Section 8 became lawful in 1904. • Prior I mbSl " P ortlon .« f a t containin, rabhe-honsps was added to portion of a no -icenso district, a vote had to be taken in th icense .district for continuance, reduction' a .o-license,- and ; a three-fifths- majority \l T^ t0 ?r* no-Konee; SecHon 8: wa v*HJ° ■ Rlter this ' ; If the attument fo 'laintiff .wna.cbrrtct, no nlttraS h?d i, inilato^-i 11, - 6, ":'^■■* h - e ctiotl^^was «o" Jiistice.v intimated to Mr ■*°<rVf, ° f ft'*' cla,,fie W! " thaV °f n 4 8 immmm mmm