An Important Licensing Question

Feilding Star, Volume XVI, Issue 55, 30 August 1894, Page 2

An Important Licensing Question

■ i im± ■ ■ i . (PBB FBISS ABOOCIATIOKJ Chbistchttbch, August 29. At the Supreme Court to-day, Richard John Whittel, of Waiau, kotelkeeper, sought an order prohibiting the Ashley Licensing Committee from enforcing a condition to the renewal of the license of the Waiau Hotel, compelling plaintiff to transfer the li. cense to some other person within three months. Plaintiff, in his affidavit, said he had had no notice of any objection to his application, and had been afforded no opportunity of reply. His Honor said section 79 of the Act of 1881 enabled the Licensing Commit tee to vary the conditions under which an accommodation license might be granted. He thought the clause could not on any reasonable construction be read as authorising the committee to inflict a penalty on the licensee or impose conditions inconsistent with the general provisions of the Act. In the present case the Committee without any notice to the applicant and without giving him an adjournment or an opportunity to reply, had imposed the condition complained of to the renewal of the license. It might be said that the plaintiff had obtained tin advantage by having escaped the charge of misconduct and possible refusal of his license, but he was not responsible for that. The committee had given a decision which by the Act was final without having heard him. He was entitled to a hearing and it was no answer to say that the committee without a hearing had inflicted a mitigated penalty. An order prohibiting the committee from enforcing the condition was granted. Costs were not allowed. _____________