LICENSING CASES.

Gisborne Times, Volume X, Issue 941, 14 July 1903, Page 2

LICENSING CASES.

By. Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, last night.

Owing to the indisposition of Judge Cooper, argument in the Newtown licensing case was not resumed to day. The Pull Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Sir Robert Stout and Judges Denniston, Conolly, and Edwards, is hearing a motion by the Rev. James Crocker, of Wanganui, that an order made by the Wanganui Licensing Committee in April last for the issue of a new wholesale license to W. and G. Turnbull and Co. be quashed on the ground that by the issue of a new license the number of licenses in Wanganui licensing district would be increased, contrary to the provisions of Section 14 of the Alcoholic Liquor Act, 1893. Mr Atkinson appears in support of the application, Messrs Skerrett and Myers opposing. Mr Atkinson contends that so far as local option is concerned the Act of 1895 makes no distinction between wholesale and other licenses. The Court has decided to take the Wanganui packet license cases to-morrow.

JUDGMENT RESERVED.

By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, last night.

Later. —In the Wanganui wholesale license case Mr Skerrett, for the defendants, contended that the case was governed by the decisiou of the Court of Appeal in McKenzie v. Hogg, in which it was held that general prohibition against an increase of licenses contained in section 14 of the Act of 1893 did not apply to wholesale licenses. He pointed out that the question put to the electors under the Aot of 1895 and the provisions of section 80 of that Act were equally general, and that they must be interpreted as section 14.0 f the Act of 1893 had been interpreted. The fact that the questions put to the electors were in an earlier Act, but as regards the three specially mentioned licenses, and in a later Act as regards licenses generally, he urged made no difference on the construction already given to the similar general probibitiou in section 14 of the Aot of 1893. Mr Skerrett further argued that subsection 10 of section 8 of the Act of 1895 did not prohibit the incroase of licenses on the following grounds : —(1) That a wholesale license is not a “license existing in the district ” within the sub-section, it not being restricted to any place ; (2) That the subsection contains no restriction against the granting of licenses, its scope being merely to leave things as they are when reduction and no license are not carried ; (3) that the sub section applies only to 1 publicans’ licenses, and that this is shown (a) by the fact that a reduction vote is explicitly restricted to publicans’ licenses, and (b) by the differences in language of tho subsection and of section 3, which refers to licenses'“-'of any description.” Mr Atkins replied, and the Court reS9rved judgment. It was intimated tnat the Newtown licensing case would probably be resumed on Wednesday.