EXCHANGED LICENSE.

Grey River Argus, 23 February 1927, Page 2

EXCHANGED LICENSE.

AUCTIONEER’S CASE. ILLEGAL TEMPORAY TRANSFER. The case in which the police toon action against J. D. Lynch, auctioneer, in connection with the exchange of a licen.se and which presented novel features, was decided by Air. VV. Al eld rum, S.M., against defendant, by whom a technical breach was admitted. The license had been temporarily transferred from \V. J. Jeffries, Hokitika, where the County Cleik, D. J. Evans, stated in evidence that, in accordance with the custom in vogue, he had sanctioned the transfer without a formal resolution of the County Council, the licensing body. The defendant, James Daniel Lynch gave evidence, lie said be was an auctioneer. and licensed land agent. He .advertised the sale of properties in conjunction with W. Jeffries and Co. Hoki tika, and prior to the auction sale, exhibited to the Borough Treasurer, and the police his conditions of sale, and also receipt from the Westland County Council for an auctioneer’s license to be used on the day mentioned. He also stated that he had, on previous occasions notified the police in writing and enclosed the County Council receipt for transfer of license. No sale was made on that occasion, the properties being passed in. He has been an auctioneer on the Coast for many years, and the practice of transferring auctioneer’s licenses without a resolution of the controlling authority had been in vogue. lie did not consider the onus was on him when applying for a transfer to the local authority to see that it was done I bv resolution of the local body.

Mr. Hannan, counsel lor the defendant .pointed out that there were only two local firms holding auctioneer’s licenses, and that Canterbury firms trading here transferred the license from Canterbury and do not contribute to the local revenue. As these Large firms trade under these conditions, defendant thought he was justified in working in conjunction with another firm. Defendant, counsel admitted a technical breach but as the minimum penalty was no less than £lO, he would ask His Worship for the discretionary power that the Ju< tice of the Peace Act conferred, either ft) dismiss the charge of impose a no minal penalty.

Senior Sergeant McCarthy, for the prosecution, said some auctioneers pai'l a £4O fee, and he did not see why defendant should secure a license tor 10/- Before the police took action,

there had been some friction. Defendant should have known all the provisions of the Act.

His Worship said he doubted if th* 1 case came under the discretionary section of the J.P. Act. There was no doubt defendant thought he was rigiK for following a practice in vogue for ■y<‘ars. but the transfer of a license foi one day was illegal. The minimum fine of £lO was severe, but with a license was regarded as valuable, the fee being the same as for a publican’s license

Tlo* proper course was to intpose a fine of £lO leaving defendant te apply for a remission to the proper authority, iliWorship would be prepared to recom mend remission of all or part of the fine. The costs were .16/- and witnesses expenses £l. Fourteen days were allow ed wherein to apply for a remission.