THE BREWERY DEPOT.

Matamata Record, Volume VI, Issue 493, 29 November 1923, Page 2

THE BREWERY DEPOT.

SHALL IT REMAIN? Supreme Court Action. Decision Favorable to Company. For some weeks it has been openly stated in Matamata that the brewery depot opened here some few months ago by the Pacroa Brewery Co. 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 culminated in an originating summons heard by Mr. Justice Stringer in the Supreme Court on Saturday* in which the Pacroa Brewery Co., Ltd. (Mr. R. McVeagh), were plaintiffs, and Janies Percy Ridings (Mr. Meredith), collector of customs, Auckland, was defendant. Plaintiff sought an order determining the power of defendant to revoke the approval he had given for the establishment of a depot for the sale of beer 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on August 30, 1923, the collector of customs approved the depot, but on October 10 he stated that approval would be withdrawn as from October 30, which period was subsequently extended to December 10.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 bo derived from the statute, and there was no such power in the statute. Mr. Meredith said the depot was merely a privilege subject to the approval of the collector. The power given being vested by statute in the collector was given to him to operate from time to time.

Ilis Honor said it might lead to very unjust results, as the approval might be revoked when the work of making 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 Honor said that counsel’s contention meant that approval could be given; then the brewery could spend £IOOO and yet have the approval withdrawn the next day.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 lie 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 this week that the decision was in favour of the company.