AN OBSTRUCTIVE OFFICIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 261, 26 August 1882, Page 3

AN OBSTRUCTIVE OFFICIAL.

To the Editor of the Globe. Sir, —In replying to your article of Saturday last, I was under the impression that its tone justified me in using a little tone in reply j but, as you seem to think otherwise, snd [decline to publith my letter on that account, I have eliminated the tone, and now ask you to do me the justice to publish the following parts of the letter, which contain only a bare statement of the facts of the official transactions referred to in your article. With regard to the charge made against me of refusing to receive a legal tender of the fee for Lawrence's license, he being at the time properly provided with a license from the Licensing Committee, for which the article states 1 have been dnly snubbed for my presumption by the chairman, and also that he pointed out to me that Lawrence could sell irrespective of the Borongh Council altogether.

Sir, the whole statement is a misrepresentation, the facts of the case being as follows: Aa borongh treasurer it is my duty, upon receipt of proper certificates from the Licensing Committee, and payment of the proper fees, to issue the licenses under which the publicans of Sydenham are authorised to sell. These certificates are in the following form:—“ We, the undersigned, being a majority of the members of the Licensing Committee, holding the licensing meeting at ( • .” Further on a blank is left in whioh the Committee is instructed to state the house to be licensed, the sign, and the district in which the house is situate. The same particulars have also to be entered in the publican’s license. When the certificates for the issue of the Sydenham licenses were forwarded, to mo they were forwarded through the post, they were marked “ duplicate,” and were unaccompanied with anything to authenticate them. The part of those certificates referring to the new bonses to be licensed were left blank, and the whole of the certificates, instead of being signed by a majority of the Committee present at the licensing meeting, were only signed by the chairman, the forms of the certificate being altered so as to make it appear that they were issued solely by his authority. The certificates not being in accordance with the Act, and not containing sufficient information to enable me to fill up the licenses, I at onoo (27th June) wrote to the chairman of the committee, pointing out in what respects they|required amending, and requesting that he would cause the alterations to be made, as I did not feel justified in issuing the licenses till that had been done.

No reply was ,made to this letter, consequently when the publicans presented the original certificates, whioh were made out in the same manner, I had to explain to them that I oonld not issue the licenses until the certificates were amended, and requested them to call again when the committee had had time to reply to my letter, and to make the alterations.

Thi* proposal was agreed to by all the licensees except Mr Lawrence, who, I suppose, because he knew me to be personally opposed to the granting of his license, at onoe seemed to infer that my refusal proceeded from that cause, and refused to credit the explanation. He also made me a formal tender of the fee, and threatened me with ulterior proceedings for refusing to take it. The following day he again called at my office and tendered the money in gold, when it was again refused on the ground that the certificates had not been corrected. Finding that the committee took no notice of my letter, the licensees personally interviewed the members of the committee who were present at the licensing meeting, and got their original certificates properly altered and signed, and (although strictly speaking I should not have done so until the duplicate certificates had been altered to correspond) on receipt of these I at onoe issued the licenses.

In the meantime finding that some of the licensees were consulting solicitors upon the question, and were trying to bring perforce upon me through the Council, I also deemed it necessary to obtain legal advice, and this is what I received:—

Christchurch, 28th June, 1882, O. Allison, Junr., Esq., Treasurer Borongh Council, Sydenham. Dear Sir,— Referring to jour letter of the 27th instant, and interview with the writer, I am of opinion that the several certificates are not in accordance with the Licensing Act, XSSI, and that you are justified in requiring them to be amended before yon issue the licenses. Tour letter to the authorities fairly puts the grounds of yoar objection, and I should think it will be at once complied with. Yours truly,

(Signed) F, J. Gaeeick. So much for the charge of officious obatruotiveness. The insinuations against my personal character, and your criticisms on the action I have taken to get Lawrence’s license declared void, although full of mis-statement, I can afford to ignore. OHAB. ALLISON, Junb.