ASHBURTON LICENSES

Hokitika Guardian, 9 October 1929, Page 1

ASHBURTON LICENSES

(By Telegraphr-Press Association). WELLINGTON, Oct. 8. In the Ashburton Licensing Appeal case, Mr Spratt., for the defendants, said that it was clear that on Section 30 only could plaintiff base his case. , The argument for the defendants would fall under the following submissions: j (1) Section 30 was not designed to cover such a case. (2) Section 30 was prospective, not retrospective, and could pot apply, because the license had lapsed before the passing of the Act. (3) The Act of 1908 prohibited the grant of a license. ' (4) The annual meeting of the Lie , ehsing Committee in 1908 was a bar re every application under Section. 30. (5) To give to Section 30 the effec* claimed would be to reverse, by mere supplemental provisions, the general policy of the licensing law from 1881 onwards Dealing with the last clause firs’' Mr Spratt examined the licensing enactments since 1881 in support of his argument that none of them made provision for the restoration of licenses except by the verdict of the people, expressed at'a licensing poll. Going back to the first clause, he submitted that the sole ground on which the .plaintiff could rely was the words of Section 30 viz: “or has otherwise censed "to exist* 1 5 l>xit tlm-t was merely a restrictive, and not an enabling section. His strong point was that there was no provisions in the Act of 1910 for the grant of a license in the Mid Canterbury district. There could not he such a thing as a license in a state of suspended animation. The case remains unfinished. FURTHER. ARGUMENT. DECISION RESERVED. WELLINGTON, October 9. Mr Spratt continuing his argument in the Asliburton case contended the provisions of Section 12 B of the Act of 1910 and also the provisions of the 1908 Act, were such that for the committee to have granted a license in question would have been to contra,vejne those sections and violate the spirit of the licensing legislation of the Dominion. With reference to his last point, counsel submitted that to comply with Section 30 it "as necessary that application should be made to the first meeting of the Licensing Committee in the district after the lapse of the license. The meeting was held in Ashburton in 1909 and this acted as a bar to any application brought by the plaintiff subsequent to that date. Plaintiff throughout his argument had been driven to insist on a literal interpretation of the wards of Section 30, and lie could not have it both ways. He insisted on the literal meaning and lie must be bound by it and so have to comply with the provision concerning the application to the first meeting. The granting of this application would have increased the number of licenses in mid-Canterbury district and that effects the fundamental idea of the act. The court reserved its decision.