CLUB LICENSE

Hokitika Guardian, 6 April 1932, Page 2

CLUB LICENSE

APPEAL BV SECHETAKY

ECHO OF ASHBURTON CASE.

(By Telegraph—Per Brett Association)

WELLINGTON, April 5. A further addition to the long line of legal disputes, which have arisen out of the change of boundaries of the Mid-C’anterbury licensing district, is before the Full Court, in the case of Edward Loftus, against Henry Martin, Sergeant of Police. Loftus is secretary of the Ashburton Club, and the Mutual School of .Arts and was charged’ before Mr Orr-Walk-er, Stipendiary Magistrate, at Aslihur-

ton, oif; February 12 last with unlawfully selling liquor to Mr Knox, president of the Club, and having been convicted, was lined £3 13s. An appeal is now lieing heard by the Full Court, consisting of the Chief Justice, Mr Myers, and Justices Herdman, McGregor, Blair, and Kennedy. Counsel for appellant said that the Ashburton Club wan registered under the Friendly Societies Act, and had been granted a. permanent charter to sell liquor under the Licensing Act, 1908. That charter had been suspended in its operation, by the Licensing Act of 1905, which was passed in view of Ashburton becoming a no-license area. On October 18, 1928, Ashburton, wherein the club was situated, was brought ‘within tile Mid-Canterbury licensing district, which was, and is, not a no-license area. It was contended for appellant that the : Club’s charter had' always subsisted} and had become operative again by virtue, of the town coming within the' Mid-

Canterbury licensing district. It was admitted by the Crown that the sale had been made under a bona, fidte belief that the charter was in full force. It was a. matter of common knowledge that liquor had been sold by the Club .under its charter for many years, but prior to the case before the Court, no objection had been made to that sale.

Counsel submitted that appellant could not be brought within the precise terms of the section under which he had been cori.vic.tecl. Mid-Canter-bury was not a. ' licensing district wherein the electors had' determined for no-license. The charter- of the Ashburton Club had been suspended bv the Act of 1905 so long only as the Club was in the terms of the Act situated in a licensing district, in which for the time being, no license existed as the result of the local poll, and that when the Club became situated in Mid-Canterbury district, the sus; pension ceased. The Solicitor-General, for the ;re T spondent, said the Licensing Act, 1910, conclusively proved that the Club was not within the MidrCantei'-lwita’ Liqen,sing Acts. The statute still preserved the old Ashburton district for purposes of law, although as an electoral district, in fact, it had ceased to exist. There was no doubt that the charter still existed, but it was suspended and could not bo revived until a local option poll was taken within., the Ashburton Licensing district. It so happened that as the result of the present electoral law, such a poll could never be taken in that district.

CROWN’S ARGUMENT

WELLINGTON, Apri 5

In the Full Court case, Loftus v. Martin, further arguments along lines similar to those advanced this meaning were submitted by the SolicitorGeneral to the court this afternoon, his main contention being that ay the result of the Local Option Poll of 1904, not only were the hotel licenses in Ashburton cancelled, but the charter of the Club, far as it related to the sale of liquor, was suspended, and that it could not be revived under the present position of the electoral law. The Court adjourned until to-mor-row.