BREWERY DEPOT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4638, 14 December 1923, Page 1

BREWERY DEPOT.

TO REMAIN AT MATAMATA. SUPREME COURT ACTION. For some: weeks it has been openly stated in Matamata (says t the “ Record”) that the brewery depot opened here some few months .ago by the Paerpa Brewery Company,’, was to close on December 10, the cause being that the collector of- customs had revoked the; permission he had given. The matter did not end/with, the order ,of the. collector, but culminat-’ ed in? an originating summons heard ,by Mr : Justice Stringer? in the Supreme Court on Saturday; in which -the ' Paeroa Brewery Comany, Ltd. (Mr R. McVeagh) were plaintiffs, and James Percy Ridings (Mr: Meredith) collector of -customs, Auckland, was defendant. Plaintiffs sought an order determining rthe po.wer of ■ defendant to revoke the approval he hadrgiven (for the. sale: of-heer at Matamata. Mr McVeagh) said, that on August 30,1923, the.collector, of customs approved the depot; but on October 10, he stated, that approval, would ’be withdrawn as from’ October 30, which period-.was subsequently extended to December 10.' The point for decision was whether : the collector having given approval, could (withdraw it at will, and after plaintiffs had incurred expense. The brewery license had to, be renewed every year, but the approval, counsel contended, was not 'limited in point of time. He submitted that the statute had invested the collector with power of approval, and that it was equally necessary that the power to disapprove should be derived from..the statute, and therewas no such power in the .statute, Mr Meredith said that the depot wsi merely a privilege subject to the approval of the collector. The power 'given being vested by statute in the collected was giyen to him to operate from time to time. His Honour said.it might lead to very unjust results, as the approval might be revoked when the work of jno.king the depot was completed. Counsel said the section was designed for the protection of the revenue, and not for the benefit of the brewer. His Honour said that, counsel’s contention meant that approval could be given ; then< the- brewery^could spend£looo and yet have the approval withdrawn the next day. The collector.-, had arbitrary power to refuse approval, but having granted approval, the question was: Had he arbitrary power to withdraw it ? Counsel contended that if it was desirable at any time in the interests of the revenue to revoke approval the collector had-power to do so. His Honor said his present impression was that there was not resident in the collector - the arbitrary power he claimed- to exercise of revoking such authority. He- would deliver a written judgment. WOrd- was received in Matamata that the decision was in favour of the company.