LICENSING COMMITTEE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5015, 18 August 1926, Page 3

LICENSING COMMITTEE.

ADJOURNED MEETING AT PAEROA.

THE MORRINSVILLE APPLICATION

The adjourned meeting of the

Ohinemuri Licensing Committee was held at Paereja. on Monday, the chairman (Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M.) presiding over" Messrs W. J. Towers, W. Marshall, P. E. Brenan, and W. M. Wallnutt.

The application of Mrs, Mary B. Montgomery tor a hotel license for premises to be erected jusit outside the Morrinsville borough boundary was the principal case set down for hearing.

Two memorials objecting' to the application being granted had been lodged, one headed by G. Reynolds and containing 25 signatures and the other by W. Johnstone;, with 19 signatures. The grounds for objection were not stated on the memorials. Messrs E. W. Porritt (Paeroa) and R. McVeagh (Auckland) appeared for the applicant, Messrs A. N. Cooper (Auckland) and A. Needham (Morrinsville) for the memoriallists Reynolds and others, and Mr E. McGregor (Morrinsville) 'for the other memorialists.

. Inspector Willis (Hamilton), on behalf of the police, said that he objected to the application under section -109 of the. Licensing Act, as there was no suitable house in existence on the property, and- also under section 292 of 'the Act, the ; committee having no power to waiver section 84.

NON-COMPLIANCE ALLEGED,

The hearing was opened by Mr Copper, who raised the preliminary objection that no notice had been delivered to the clerk of the Licensing Committee, as required under section 84, and for that reason, he submitted, the committee had no jurisdiction •over the matter, a,nd there was no legal application before the commit- ' tee. The issue governing the redistribution of licenses on restoration being carried was also, to be (found in section 11 of the Amendment to the 1910 Act. Also section 83 of the principal Act clearly set njut that licenses could be granted only at the annual meeting 5 . Section 84 also had a bearing on that point. Counsel . submitted that • the statutory notice had not been posted on the. door of the premises, nor the advertising carried out as laid down by the Act. Further, the necessary 21 days’ notice- had jiot been filed with the clerk. It was therefore claimed that the conditions had not been complied with, and the committee had not been regularly notified of the alteration to house the license in the present proposed premises ne.ar Morrinsville. Mr Cooper traced the history df the former, application for premises at Waitoa, and quoted numerous authorities to show that the committee had no power to forego any of the conditions laid down. The cotaimittee, under section 292, had power to-waiver section 84,. but such power did not ■apply where inadvertence had occurred and .the Act could not be complied with. Such a position did not obtain with the application under review, and any default or irregularity ■must have been wilful. The applicant had had the choice of any part of the. electorate, and at the annual meeting had selected Waitoa. The application being refused, .Mrs Montgomery had no.t the ‘right at that stage, to switch over into another part of the district. QUESTION OF ANNUAL MEETING. The chairman said that from the reasons advanced by Mr Cooper a question was raised as toi what was the annual meeting. . < Mr Cooper contended that the first meeting" of the committee held in June was. undoubtedly the annual meeting. Power to adjourn was provided, but he submitted that a new application or license could noit be granted except at the annual meeting in the June following. Section 57 of the Act showed ‘clearly that it was necessary to affix a notice to the door of .the premises in which the meeting was to be held. If an applicant was permitted to put in an application for a license within 21 days of an adjourned meeting, then licenses could be granted at any time during the year, which was- ‘contrary to the spirit of the Act. On resuming after the luncheon adjournment Mr McGregor submitted that there was. no legal application before the Bench. He contended that the committee could hold onlj' four meetings in a, year, and quoted section 54 in support. He asked the committee to take judicial notice of that fact. No new business could be introduced at the quarterly meetings, although such meetings might be adjourned from time to time. Sections of the Act clearly showed that licensee could only be granted at the annual meeting, which should be held in June of each year. Had no applications been received by the committee prior to or on May 17 there could have been no meeting. Thg application before the meeting had not been lodged until July 3, and was therefore but of compliance. If the applicant could bring her application within se'ction 115 —renewal of license—it might be possible for the committee to deal with Assuming- the committee had power to deal with the application, it must fail owing to noncompliajhce with the provisions of section' 84. The application was filed on July 3 to go before the Court at Auckland on July 5. A duplicate notice had not been fixed to the door the premises within the prescribed 21 days. Such non-compliance must be fateful to the application. Counsel cited numerous authorities in support ,of his, contention. The Bench called upon JMk w A. Needham to state his objections. Mr Needham pointed out that under section 60, paragraph L, it was the duty of counsel for the applicant to state his. case first. The Berich agreed to this course. Inspector Willis said that he had nothing to add to Mr McGregor’s remarks, other than to voice his; objection to the granting of the application oh the grounds that it was not In order.

CASE FOR APPLICANT. Mr McVeagh said he thought that he should be given an opportunity to know what the objectiojns of the memorialists were, s,o .that he could consider them. The Bench said that it would hear Mr McVeagh first. In opening for the applicant Mr McVeagh outlined the history of the application and contended that there could be no legal objections to the granting of a, license for premises near Morrinsville. He quoted sections 86, 91, and 109 dealing witli objections, one of which, he claimed, applied to the application before the committee, it people, were to be allowed to object on grounds other than those laid down the objections would not have been so limited by the Act. There was no cause for any person to come forward with merely technical objections to an application, and neither could the committee go back on its former decisions. The order of the Court in connection with the waiver would have to be- sustained by the committee. 'There could be no suggestion that the applicant had misled the committee in any way. The adjournment of a meeting was merely the prolongation of the annual me.eting, and as-such the committee was competent to deal! with the application. The course he intended to pursue was not to ask for the granting of the application .that day. Plans and specifications would be produced ’for a new building, the committee would be asked to approve of them, ma.ke suggestions, and then grant an adjournment until December. Mrs Montgomery .was, accepted as an approved person with a preferential claim to a license. William Montgomery, son of the applicant, gave formal evidence as to the site of the proposed new hotel. A cottage was at present oil the site, and on the door of that cottage the formal notice respecting the application had been posted. In the. event of a license being granted the; building could be completed in about three months. There was only one licensed hotel iii the Borough df Morrinsville. The site was in the Ohinemuri electorate, and had no connection with the borough. To Mr Needham witness said that it wap unreasonable to be asked to define exactly where the trade would come from when the new hotel was opened.

To Mr McGregor witness said, that of his own knowledge the statutory notice had been pasted on the door of the cottage. The application was set down to be heard on August 9. and not in July. The notice had been up about four weeks; Witness could not swear that the Hauraki Plains Gazette or the Auckland Star did not circulate at Morrinsville. Mr McVeagh said it was. absurd to suggest that the Auckland papers, at least, did not circulate in that town. - Ta the Bench witness stated that the site of the proposed hotel was about 600 yards from the Morrinsville pos,t office. There had been a licensed house at Morrinsville for about forty years.

George L. Burmester, architect, produced pflans of the proposed hotel, and detailed the locality and class of building.

. To Mr Needham witness said that application had not been made to the Borough Council" for a water supply, although it was. appreciated that application would be necessary. In the event of it being refused it would, be an easy matter to sink a well and obtain a.n adequate , water supply. BOUNDARIES' .OF ELECTORATES Mr Needham said that in addition to the objections advanced by Messrs Cooper and McGregor, each of which he supported, the memorialists whom he represented also/ objected tq the granting of'a license on the grounds that the site of’the proposed hotel was at least ten miles outside .the existing boundaries of thei Ohinemuri .electorate at the time'(no-license came into effeict. ' An objection was. alsoi raised on the score that a second hotel at or near Morrinsville was not warranted. The chairman advised Mr Needham that it was not encumbent on him to rajse s,uch an objection. Mr. Needham said that the minimum number of licenses ojn the pbpuaticjn basis had already been exhausted by the committee, and the issue Of further licenses was at the discretion of the committee. Objection was alsp taken to the proposed water and drainage, facilities, and! the inadequacy of the accommodation. Mr McVeagh drew attention' to a telegram from the Public Health Department approving of the drainage provisions.. He also pointed out that Mr Needham was contradicting his previous statement with regard to the accommodation. EVIDENCE OF ENGINEER. Mr Needham called R. C. Branch, engineer to the Morrinsville Borough Council. Witness said that application had be.cn received 'from Mrs Montgomery for a connection to the borough water supply. It wa,s quite within the province of the council to refuse to connect up the service to a person residing outside the borough. Mr McVeagh : That is a matter for law. Witness S'a,id that obviously if there was not a good water supply the drains would not function properly. He was not prepared to swear that the drainage system for the proposed hotel was unsatisfactory, in view of the Health Department having approved of it. The population of Morrinsville. wa,s. between 1600 and 1700 persons., and he was not prepared to' say that the proposed premises would! improve the facilities; for accommodation. Pressed by Mr McVeagh witnessed admitted .that the borough councillors were an intelligent, busi-ness|-like body of men, who. would her prepared to consider an application, for the extension of the water reticulation if such an application was made. GROUNDS RELIED UPON. In answer to the chairman Mr Cooper intimated that he did. not propose to call any evidence, as his, instructions were to oppose the appli-

cation on the legal grounds of noncompliaiice.

Mr McVeagh intimated that he particularly desired the committee not to pre-determine the application, which he maintained he had proved was a perfectly reasonable one, and one that had complied with the requirements of the Act. He: asked the committee to consider the application very carefully before coming to a decision, and if necessary to make such alterations, to the plans or submit suggestions as were, deemed desirable. FURTHER ADJOURNMENT. On resuming atfer a brief adjournment the chairman said that the committee had been asked to give its approval to the. plans, but tha,t could hardly be done without giving rome indication as to the fate of the application. The committee was df opinion that, although its, powers were very restricted, it still had a shred of discretion left, and it was, satisfied that it did have sufficient jurisdiction to deal with the application. However, it was proposed to adjourn the application with the annual! meeting until Monday, September 6, at nobn, on which date it was hoped to give a definite pronouncement. The chairma.n s.aid that the committee would be glad if counsel would submit authorities in support, or otherwise, of the 1 po'int 'raised oil the adjournment.