Manamatu Herald. THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1898. The Licensing Committee.

Manawatu Herald, 8 June 1893, Page 2

Manamatu Herald. THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1898. The Licensing Committee.

If further proof was necessary, which it is not, to show how exceeding unsatisfactorily the. Licens ing duties are carried out by Licens ing Committees, the annual meeting of the Foxton Committee could be cited. The Committee is composed of five men, and all, but one, have failed to grasp the duties cast upon them. Mr Jenks stands out from that Committee as a pleasing and startling exception. We had previously cautioned the Committee, and Mr Jellicoe repeated the caution, that they had to act upon the evidence produced before them " and not do according to their wills and private affections." As might be expected, with stubborn men, they i did precisely the contrary. An unprejudiced person reading the evidence will see that the Committee had placed before them these facts : — that 208 adults within the district desired that a license should be granted to Spelman, and only ten persons objected to.it ; that the Inspector of Licensed Houses reported favourably on the application, and stated the need there was for further accommodation ; and other witnesses deposed to having been unable to obtain accommodation in the present hotels. On the other hand out of the ten objectors, those called could say nothing against the applicant or the house ; but the Good Templars stated their objections were generally against any increased drinking accommodation, and ,Mr Stansell, the present licensee of Whyte's hotel, swore that further licenses were likely to destroy the quiet of the neighbourhood. He desired it to be understood that his objection was made more patriotically than selfishly. After hearing this evidence the Committee, by four to one, refused the License. In the case of Gray's application, it was arranged by tho solicitors; for Mr Gray, and for the opposing petitioners, and by the Committee, that all the : evidence tendered for and against the application for a license to Spelman, should be taken as given in Gray's case, and beyond calling Mr Gray to depose as ' to ' the usual formalities having been earned

out, the evidence was exactly similar to the first application, excepting that the petition in favour of the license was only signed by 108 persons. The Committee after a short retirement unanimously granted Gray's application. Any person at all acquainted with receiving and weighing evidence will at. once grasp the fact that the weight of evidence, in every slmue, was in favour of a license being grouted to Spelman, as he was supported in his application by over one hundred more persons than Gray was. If the request of the petitioners hud- no weight with the Committee in Spelman's case, then certainly a fewer number, containing howßver nearly all the names who had supported Spelman, could not have influenced the Committee in Gray's case. What thon did? Was it because Spelman's house was over seven chains away from a schoolhouse, and Gray's house on the adjoining section to a church which prompted their selection of this applicant for a license ? It might have been consistent to have refused both applications, but the reasons which should have guided the Committee in granting Gray's application existed in greater force in authorising them to grant ■ Spelman's, unless they, acted, as they were strongly warned not to " according to their wills and prh ate affections."

We do not suppose the question will be allowed to : end here. The Gpmniittee will probably ere long be called upon for some explanation of the " free interpretation " they have made of their powers. We commend to the members a suggestive paragraph in tha Post of Monday which points out that in a licensing appeal recently decided by the Chief Justice " the right of free interpretation according to individual discretion as a right and proper thing on the part of Magistrates was effectually condemned." What a case the applicant has to ask that the Committee to be called upon to answer. First, there were many irregularities on the part of (the Committea, they refused to make -'the rules ordered under clause 65 of the Licensing Act ; they have never completed their decision with regard to Spelman's application, as all that the chairman chose to record was " after due consideration the Committee declined to grant the license.'' The omission is fatal, as clause 67 declares " in case of the refusal of an application the Licensing Committee refusing the same shall at the time of such refusal make known the objection or objections causing such refusal." Then there is the evidence, that the chairmau told the Committee " if the whole police in the district and the whole of the Justices came forward and swore upon oath that increased accommodation was required they (the Committee) need not take any noMee ot it." This is pretty well, as affect ing the Committee collectively, besides what can be said of them in dividually. It was a common rumour in the town a few days betore the Committee sat that the result would be as it occurred. It is an exceedingly unfortunate 00-incidence that the. opposing petition to the granting of both licenses should have been taken round for signatures by I one of the owners of Whyte's Hotel, and that it should have been signed by tenants of Whyte's estate, and that Mr Stansell, the tenant of Whyte's' Hotel; should have thought it in keeping with ; fair play to come forward and object, when he knew that three members of the Committee were also tenants in Whyte's estate. We think these circumstances point to the remarks made by Mr ••Jellicoe that a monopoly of the trade was being attempted by, chiefly Whyte's estate, and then oy other interests in the other public houses. We have no hesitation in saying that anyone else so closely connected as Mr Stephen Startup is with the interests of Whyte's property, his son-in-law being one of the owners, wouldnofc have prejudiced his position by sitting and deciding upon cases which must, though indirectly, affect him.