OHINEMURI LICENSES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 4996, 5 July 1926, Page 3

OHINEMURI LICENSES.

ACTION AT SUPREME COURT. COMMITTEE EXONERATED. The action concerning certiorari and prohibition against the Ohinemuri Licensing Committee from granting licenses to the Paeroa Hotel, Paeroa, the Kerepeehi Hotel, Kerepeehi, and the Golden Cross Hotel, Waihi, was concluded before Mr Juustice Stringer in the Supreme Court on Friday afternoon. The case wa,s brought because of the refusal of the committee to grant a license to Mary B. Montgomery (Mr H. O. Cooney) for an hotel at WaitoaA rule nisi to quash the refusal, and k an order prohibiting the committee 'from granting licenses to three other hotels was obtained last Saturday by Mr Cooney. He had applied- to the committee for an adjournment of his ; application, a,nd a statement in writing of the committee’s grounds of refusal, both of which were refused. After the luncheon adjournment on Friday legal argument was opened by Mr Cooney for the plaintiff, and Mr McVeagh,'- Mr Finlay, Mr Northcroft, and Mr Tuck for the defendants. Reviewing the evidence, His Honour stated that an 'early-settlement wa/s desired in the circumstances, and J he felt he should give his decision. He was of the opinion that it was, if not an impropriety, certainly a highly injudicious thing on the part of the owners of these properties, to offer contracts in regard to the premises which were the subject matter of these applications. It would be agreed that the admininstration of justice should not only be fair, but also as far as possible above suspicion, and it seemed to him that when these owners a,nd members of the entered into contracts involving la.rge sums of money they Lj placed themselves in an' equivocal position. He had to determine whether there had been a violation of the established principles of law. A PECUNIARY INTEREST. It was contended by Mr Cooney, His Honour, that Marshall and Towers by virtue of their contracts had a pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the litigation. There wa.s a good deal of force in the argument, but he was not satisfied on that point. In the first place, pecuniary interest must be in the subject matter of the litigation. In this case that was the license. Ilf the contract remunueration had been affected, in any way by the granting or refusing of the applications he would have thought tha.t Mr Cooney had estab-: lished his case, but he was unable to arrive at that conclusion on the, evidence. There was nothing ,to indicate that the contract, which was ’•'•made for alterations to the building, other than fair and reasonable for the work to be done. It was quite, true that it was not done by public £ tender, but he appreciated the 'fact that where’ alterations were being made to an’ old building it was impossible to let the work by tender... No unfavourable interest was to, be drawn from' the way in which the work had been arranged. Mr Cooney had contended that the contractors s ha.d certain pecuniary interest, but lie did hot think that applied in the present case within the meaning of the decision relied on. The firms were of undoubted financial stability, and the contractors did not run a.ny risk of not being paid.

QUESTION OF BIAS. . The only other question to be considered, said His, Honour, was that of bias. In the case of Marshall and Towers, that depended oil the alleged pecuniary interest- As far as Walters was concerned, he was unable to agree tha,t he had done or, said enough to disqualify him'from sitting on the committee. He considered it quite legitimate for a candidate to state the general principles on which he proposed to act. He did not think Walters had taken up an unreasonable attitude that those who. voted for restoratioii should have licenses and thos!© who voted agaiiist restoration should not have licenses. The only suggestion against him that seemed to bear any weight w/as that he advised the, people that if they wanted to present their objections to the committee they could do sto by signing a memorial. The progress of that memorial had no doubt been discussed by him, but His Honour did not think he could disqualify him on the ground of. bias for the part he took. . The motion to set aside and vacate *he order of prohibition 'would be granted. Dealing with Mr Cooney’s right 'for an adjournment of his application for a license for the Waitoa Hotel and a statement of'the committee’s reasons for the refusal, His Honour sa,id that the matter had not .been brought specifically before the -Court, and he was not prepared to express an Opinion. Counsel could deal with that question m other proceedings. Mr Cooney intimated that he would take such action on behalf of his r client.