Untitled

Evening Star, Issue 3502, 14 May 1874, Page 2

No one can read the reports of the various licensingmeetings throughout the Colony without being struck by the widely different opinions the Courts hold of the powers conferred upon them by the new Incensing Act. The utterly conflicting nature of those opinions will be best seen by comparing the decisions of the Courts*that were called upon to deal with opposed applications. In Auckland and Nelson the Commissioners granted the licenses applied for almost as a matter of course, because no opposition was offered to any of them; and the same may be said of Wellington, where opposition, though threatened, was nob given, because the Hood. Templars’ memorials were not lodged in timp. But at Dunedin, Christchurch, Grahamstown, Hokitika, and Napier, the licensing Benches had to construe the Act for themselves. At Dunedin, the Bench laid down excellent rules for their own guidance, but did not act up to them in every instance ; at Christchurch, the Bench appear to have taken licenses away in a most arbitrary manner, and refused to pay the slightest attention to the expressed wishes of “an overwhelming majority,” by which, on the authority of Mr Fox, than whom higher cannot be, the A ct can only come into operation; at Hokitika, the large discretion vested in the Commissioners was exercised in such a way as to lead us to suppose they were appointed on account of their want of discretion. At Grahamstown the Good Templars objected to ten houses, on the ground that there was no necessity for them ; hut the Bench, considered that the; hotel-keepers who bad applied for licenses were themselves the best judges as to whether their houses were required or not, and held that whether public-houses under any circumstances, viewed from a totalabstinence point, are a necessity, was beside the question. This same point was raised by the Good Templars at Waipawa, in Hawke’s Hay, and there also decided against them. In the latter case, the Chairman of the Bench (Mr Sealy, R.M.) made some very pertinent and sensible remarks, which we quote In his opinion, the Assembly, in passing the Act, could not intend that every dozen or so of householders should be able to close the hotels, which were the only provision for travellers. He respected the motives of the Good Templars and Eechabites, and sympathised with them to the extent of desiring to abate the excessive drinking which was so prevalent in this country ; and if two-thirds of the inhabitants of a large district desired to abolish licensed houses, he thought there would bei

some reason for yielding to their wishes ; but j , a & ree that a dozen or so of people should be able to put pressure on all travellers whose business might lead them into that part of the country. He thought that the total abstainers should take means to provide a substitute for the present hotels before seeking to close them. The memorial that had been presented to the Court did not contain signatures to render it compulsory in the Court to comply with it; but it would be i ™ embe f s to consider how far it was entitled to consideration. For his own part, as long as the law allowed the sale of fermented liquors, he would not (except when compelled m terms of the Act) vote against any house merely because it was engaged in a trade which as yet was not held to be unlawful. In effect, Mr Sea.ly pronounces that, unless something glaring stand in the way, such as a house being improperly kept, or in the hands of an unfit person, it would be contravening the spirit and intention of the Act for a Licensing Court to refuse any application j and in that view we concur.