KEEPING AN HOTEL.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1017, 5 January 1911, Page 2

KEEPING AN HOTEL.

QUESTION OF FITNESS,

MUST LICENSEES BE MARRIED?

Mr. 'Justice Cooper delivered judgment yesterday morning in an interesting case undci tho licensing law. It appears that .it has.been a custom. an:ong..magistrates in tho Dominion to refuse a.certificate of personal fitness to an.'applicant'"for " a hotel license if the applicant is unmarried .' or if his wife will not reside 011 the premises.' ■ ■ .-. Frederick J. Bright, a well-known set- .' tier of Eketaliuna, dccided to go into tlw hotel business, and sought .to obtain a transfer, of .the- license of the Telegraph ■ Hotel, Otaki. He applied for a certificate of fitness on November 25,, 1910, and the application was refused by .Mr, A. D, Iliomspn, S.M., at Palmerston. North, after hearing the applicant's solicitor and' the evidence adduced by him. . The applicant then asked the Supreme Court for; a mandamus directing the magistrate to issue the certificate. This,motion was-' heard by Mr. Justice Cooper on Decemtcr . v kf a r - 'J-'- Young annearr'd for plaintiff, and Mr. H. R. Ostle'r for defendant. His Honour quoted judgments'of Mr., ' Justice-Edwards, who had held that a* magistrate's decision as to the. fitness'of i'. a person to hold a publican's license, if; arrived- at after an inquiry regularly and I properly held could not be questioned in* - any proceeding whatever. His Honour agreed with this opinion.' Mr. Young's' contention (his Honour continued) wasthat the -magistrate, although he ■ luid regularly held an inquiry, hns not exer- , cised any discretion in determining the application, but that, having held, that. the applicant wasof good fame and repu--' -tation, he. improperly-refused-the. certifi- - cate because he followed,..it was alleged, ' 1 a general -rule. made,, it. was - alleged..by . him, that ill no case would he jraut a • - certificate of fitness to an unmarried man, "or to a married mau whose witt*-," -- would not be resident in the hotel , with' the "applicant. If a' magistrate,. without- . talcing into consideration. ; tho circum-- - stances of a particular case, refused? im that particular case a certificate merely' upon such a general rule. His 'Honour thought the: Supreme Court would issue a mandamus directing.him to hear and, determine the particular 'application-niton: > its merits. This was not, however, , tlie - present case. Even taking tho account put forward by the plaintiff of the pro-, ceodings before the magistrate as a com-'. - pletely accurate account of what took • place,, the magistrate did not.-state, that';"'• in no case would, he grant a certificate" to' .- 11 .man of good fame and reputationmerely because he was unmarried,,or, i£'' v married, because his wife would "not ; he" ; resident in the hotel. According, to the;.; affidavit of the plaintiff's solicitor, what', ' the magistrate said was that lie had : made a rule to refuse a certificate' where the wife of the applicant 'would'not reside, in'the hotel,.except,where/there were;-, , exceptional circumstances. . ■ The. affidavit of .-the' magistrate was,"' however; in. his Honour's opinion, conclusive that he " heard "and determined the plaintiff's application : upon its' merits..; ' The plaintiff-was a married man'of mature years.- His wife was examined before tho magistrate, and she stated that" she would not under'any circumstances go to reside in the hotel at Otaki for thelicense of which the plaintiff was an ap- - plicant.. -The magistrate- stated- that-ha - was chairman of the Licensing Committee'." ;■ for the district in which the hotel waa '- i situate, that the license had" been for ."> some time held by a single man, and that the .result had been- unsatisfactory, - and: . that he (the magistrate) considered it -* "essential for the protection of the female 1 servants, and in order, that the house might be properly- conducted, that' the - licensee's wife should reside cn the premises, and that as'the plaintiff's wite refused to do so he declined to grant tho application.". Now,, the certificate..which 'V tho magistrate was required to give was not merely that the applicant was of, good fame and reputation, but that Jie was a , fit nn.d-'propor person to hold-the license. That meant that lie was a suitable person ' to be licensee .for the, particular pre'm- ' is'es.y'.Whitiijlio' .;:masiVrai;B 1 ■ was - that,vl%ause-" thq wife ": (definitely, fe£v&ed:.'to: rcsido'in; the hotel," "to hold" the license, although his "faiiie* good-.- •-"f- '. , "This," his Honour concludcd, "was purely a matter for the magistrate's. dis- -\ cretion. .He (heard tho. application in a prosier manner, he "considered-it, and determined it, and to adopt the language of Mr. Justice Edwards in Martin v. Barton, it is impossible that I can review these reasons and substitute myself for the magistrate, and deal With the case upon its merits. The magistrate 'has ahready done so, and. there ■is no appeal . from his decision. The motion .is dismissed, and there must be judgment foi the-defendant,-with .£7--7s. costs."----