LICENSES IN OHINEMURI.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 4984, 7 June 1926, Page 2

LICENSES IN OHINEMURI.

THE QUESTION OF PREFERENCE. INTERPRETATION OF COUNSEL. In the grafting of licenses the Ohinemuri Licensing Committee will have, to take into account the Applications based on a claim for preference under section 11, sub-section 3, of the Licensing Act, 1910. During the sitting of the committee at Paeroa various interpretations were placed ■upon this clause by counsel appearing for the different applicants. Legal, argument was head'd, after which judugment was reserved. The clause, reads : “In determining applications for such licenses the owners of premises in respect to which a publican’s license was in existence at the time of the coming into 'force of the last licensing poll in favour of local no license shall be given preference over applications by other persons unless some objection within the meaning of section 109 of the principal; Act shall be established.” NOT GUIDED BY PRECEDENT. Mr McVeagh said that in considering this question of preference the committee had no precedent to guide them. The clause had been on the Statute Book 16 years, and had never come before a Court of superior or inferior jurisdiction. He quoted the clause in the 1910 Act granting preference, and the events leading up to its enactment, and said that in parsing it the Ligislature had aijned at doing a bare act of justice to the people who lost their licenses and considerable suhis of money by the carrying of no license. He contended that the clause was intended to be compensatory in character. There could be no possible doubt that the Legislature intended to afford some remedy to these people. It was permissible to reach the intended meaning of the clause, supposing it to be obscure, by merely inverting the words thus: “In determining applieaions for such licenses the owners at the time of the coining into force of the tost licensing poll in favour of local no license of premises in respect to which a publican’s license was in existence, shall be given preference, etc.” The intention was thus placed beyond doubt. Mr Beeche was asking tha,t this be reduced to an injustice by arguing that it 'referred to tlie person who was now the owner of a property which carried a license in 1908. POSITION OF COMPANIES. Continuing, Mr McVeagh also dealt with the question of compahies-claim-ing preference putting forward nominees for licenses for houses owned by them. It could not be presumed that the Legislature intended that companies should be deprived of the benefit of tlie preference cla,use, and to take advantage of their preference they must be allowed to send nominees before the committee for licenses. He contended that the clAu.se conferred a statutory option, which could be transmitted through a will much as a secret formula equid be transmitted under English law. Mr E. J. Clendon supported Mr McVeagh, and sa,id preference was transmissible and assignable. The chairman, Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., asked whether it was - contended that the absolute right of preference, gave the right to also say where, the Hotel was to be situated irrespective df the desire of the committee.

Mr Clendon said it did, the holder of the preference having the right to ask for a license for any part of the licensing district, Mr E. H. Northcroft also spoke in support of Mr McVeagh, a.nd said that the intention of the Legislature was to ccmpensate those who owned premises at the time of no-license, and them only. He disagreed that there was a right to tramlfer a license to another part of the district. DISCOURAGING TIED HOUSES. Mr H. L. Cooney, of Te Puke, counsel for the application for a license for Waitoa, held that the intention, of the Legislature wan to discourage “tied” houses, and contended that section 11 referred to individual owners at the time, of no-license and not to companies. He also held that the poll last November gave license to Ohinemuri, a.nd it was not .within the power of the committee to rdfuse Waitoa a license and thus retain nolicnse in that end of the district. Mr Beeche, who ha,d raised the question of preferehce, said that there wt’-s no ambiguity in the clause, its wording being perfectly plain, and simple, if the intention to legislature was as Mr McVeagh claimed, the addition of a few words such as “the persons who were owners, etc.,” would have placed it beyond doubt. He failed to see the clause was intended to be compensatory when, as was claimed, it would- be possible to transfer a license which was not worth 5s at the carrying of no-license from Golden Cross to Wajhi, where it would be worth much. The Chairman : So that your argument is that preference obtains so long as a building remains. The chairman remarked that in that case there would in time be no buildings in existence by reason of filre and decay, and the intent of the Legislature would be defeated. Mr Beeche further argued that if preference could be assigned, then preference was assigned with the sale of the property. In that case the. right of preference had descended to> his client, J. B. Weedon, from Campbell fynd Ehrenfried and John Kelly, in connection with the Rob Roy Hotel at Waihi. The only reasonable interpretation of the clause was that the present owners of premises were tire persons who should obtain this preference, and that no person could claim preference unless he was an applicant for a license.