GOOD TEMPLARS v. THE PUBLICANS.

Evening Star, Issue 3417, 3 February 1874, Page 2

GOOD TEMPLARS v. THE PUBLICANS.

the licensing difficulty again. At the Resident Magistrate’s Court to-day, before Messrs J. Black and J. Brown, J.P.’s, a case was brought to test the power of the Superintendent to grant transfer of licenses, when the Licensing Court, which sat in Dun edin in December last, refused to act. The complainant was Robert (-»reig, who holds high i ffice in the Good TempUrs, and the defendant James L, A. Richmond, landlord of the Scotia Hotel, at the corner of Leith and Dundas streets, who was charged, under the 6th section of tbe Licensing Act of 1873, with selling alcoholic liquor without a license! After hearing evidence and the arguments of counsel—Mr W. D. Stewart for informant, and Mr E. ( ook for the defendant - the Bench held that there had been an infraction of the ■ ct, and imposed a nominal fine of Is. It is coniended by tbe Good Templars that tbe effect of this decision, if it he not reversed, is to shut up all liquor traffic in Otago until new licenses are granted under the Act, the first licensing meeting under which cannot take place until April next. Ihe proceedings in Court to day were as follow

On the case being called, Mr Stewart mentioned that as there were two informations against the defendant, it might be convenient to take them together, but the proceeding was objected to by Mr Cook, and tho Bench decided to take them separately. Mr Cook : Upon the summons I shall have to make some objections, which I shall mention hereafter. lor the present, then, I plead, under protest, “not guilty.” I should, however, like to know for whom my friend appears ? J

Mr Stewart: I appear for the informant in this case, Mr Greig, I may as well explain the circumstances of our position, and'the facts x!r say j UB *be proceedings now taken. Mr Richmond, the defendant, at the last quarterly licensing meeting, applied for a transfer of a license from one hotel to anothef, the hotel to winch he wanted the license' transferred not being one that had been previously licensed. Inis hotel is situate in Leith street, just before crossing the bridge leading to the Northern jCemetery. A very large number of the inhabitants of the district had objections to a hotel being opened there, they thinking it would demoralize the neighborhood, and create a great deal ot disturbance, which would not otherwise take place. Although the Rev. Mr otanford. Mr Jago, and a very large number of the inhabitants

Mr Cook objected to such statements. Tho charge was that tho defendant had sold a quantity of alcoholic liquor—whisky, to wit—and that was what had to be proved. Mr Stewart: We say that before licenses are granted, persons have a right, if they think fit, to lodge objections, and a ground here is that our objections were not considered, therefoie this new license, or transfer of license as it is termed, was improperly issued, and, in point of law, was no license at all Householders may lodge objections, and it is the duty of the Dench to see, before granting any license, that persons objecting are given the opportunity of being heard, which was not done on this occasion.

Mr Cook: I must again object to the course being pursued by my learned friend. It is not competent for your Worships to sit in judgment upon what another Bench has or has not done, or to determine whether objections ought to have been received or not. If a license has been issued, which prima facie is a good license, you cannot sit to review it, or to annul and overturn what has been done by a Bench or authority of co-ordinate jurisdiction. Tho matter cannot be questioned, .Mr Stewart: I am entitled to explain the circumstanceswhich led to the informationbeing

Mr Blaclc; The charge is one of selling alcoholic liquor without a license. It is usual to allow a httle latitude in opening a prosecution, but Mr Cook may depend that no unfair latitude will be allowed. : ex P lana tion will put the matter in a fair light. I was about to say that ceitain objections to this license were made by a large number of householders, and that the parties appeared before the Licensing Bench on December 2 As the Bench are f’i«7Q Cerfcam Act T the new Licensing Act of 1873—was passed (at the last session of the General Assembly which regulates the sale of alcoholic liquor throughout the Colony. Section 6 reads thus: “No person, unless he shall be duly licensed under this Act, shall sell any alcoholic liquors, or permit or suffer the same to be sold by any person on his behalf; and any person who shall be convicted of doing so shall be liable to a penalty of not exceeding fity pounds for every such offence.” Under this section the Justices who occupied the Bench on that occasion—the Bench comprisinga very large number of justices, and including Mr Watt, R.M. —came to the conclusion upon the then state of legislation, that they had no power to grant licenses, or, in fact, to administer the licensing law at all. After some discussion they adjourned for a fortnight, consulting the Attor-ney-General in the meantime, but on the second occasion they did not appear on the Bench, so that the meeting apparently lapsed. We contend before the Superintendent can act, two things must have occurred.—There must have been no quorum of Licensing Justices, and a certificate to that effect must have been sent to the Superintendent. I submit this license to Mr Richmond is illegal—First, because it was not granted under the Act of 1873 • and second, that the Superintendent had no power to grant a transfer, because the two condi lions befare mentioned were not complied with Kobert Greig, carpenter, said that on January he purchased at defendant's house from the defendant himself a bottle of whisky, for which he paid 3s fid. He had the liquor tested. Cross-examined : I am a Good Templar, and therefore do not drink. The whisky was purchased simply for the purpose, of proving the sale. We spotted Richmond simply because %L h °r U Z hj % d be ? n th i° one a PPewad against. Ihe Good Templars have taken the matter up and I being a member of that body volunteered to make this complaint, not because of any antipathy to Richmond, but for the reason I have just given. lam not a great man among the Templars, nor was I selected by the Society to inform The only reward I receive is the reward of virtue—(laughter). The expenses will be paid by me. The Good Templars pay Mr Stewart, I believe. ' Then the prosecution is got up by the Good Templars ? 1 believe so. But you are not inconvenienced by this house ?—No; because Xda not live near it, but I belong to a body which believes that public-houses are a nuisance, and of no good to the community at large. Are you going to bring any other person before this Court ? I don t know. Besides, I must not divulge any decisions that take place in Lodge, but so far as I myself am concerned, I do not know of any further proceedings. Thomas J. Jackman, gauger at H,M. Customs, proved that the whiskey produced was alchohohchauor < \V, P, Street, clerk of the Gourfc, that there was a quorum of Justices on the Licensing Bench on December 2, and I that no certificate was sent to the Superintendent: H. S. Fish that the Licensing Bench refused to sit on December 18 ; and J. W. Jago, that he and others petitioned against the granting of a license to the defendant; but that they had uo opportunity of supporting their petition before the Superintendent and -Executive.

Mr Cook submitted that the case must be dismissed, on the following grounds: That there was no proof Richmond had not a license • and, second that their Worships had no juris! diction. (This latter point of jurisdiction was at once overruled by the Bench.) He contended, at considerable length, that the Suner, intendent had full power to grant the transfer £,T lld ' d byliandmgin a transfer, underhis Honoi s hand, which, he said, was a sufficient answer to the information. The Bench said they had no doubt that the informant had brought the case with the best motives. It would cause great inconrenience owing to the uncertainty of the law if the Bench were to encourage any such proceedings. There was only one lapse—the notice should have been sent to the Superintendent and Execuhve that there was not a full licensing bench Ihe defendant seemed to believe that he was acting properly, and therefore a nominal fine of and costa would only be iiflwted, 01

w«~v te > W j rt : y* & 9X9 mte B *tified with your Worship s decision, and ask leave to withdraw information laid. Mr Cook then gave notice of appeal