Spelman v. Licensing Committee.

Manawatu Herald, 3 August 1893, Page 2

Spelman v. Licensing Committee.

In the Supreme Court on Tuesday, before Mr Justice Richmond, Mr Jellicoe moved on behalf of Bernard Spelinan, of Foxton, for a mandamus to the Foxtion Licensing Committee to compel them to hear and determine Mr Spehnan's application for a license for the proposed Avenue Hotel, or in the alternative for a certeriorari to bring up and quash the defendants' certificate refusing a license to Spelman, on the ground of their bias and abuse of authority. At the outset Mr Jellicoe took objeotion to the statement of defence filed by the defendants and contended that the action must be treated as if no defence, rhsdjtaen put in. Mr Justice Bichmondjhfcld tnafc the defences, were improperly prepared and irregular, and rilled them out. Mr Jellicoe then ppjgted out that the affidavits of the defendants were also defective, but after some discussion he agreed to waive this objection in order tbat the matter might be disposed of and avoid an adjournment. The various affidavits filled in support and opposition to the motion were read by counsel, and it was argued on behalf of Mr Spelman tbat the duty of the Licensing Committee to determine whether a public house was required in the neighbourhood ya^judiciai duty, and that the discretion* *giv%n by the Act to the- Committee is a judicial discretion; that] the Committee had not exercised that discretion according to the rules of reason and justice,; bu{ : -&c£prdsg7to private opinion.. and that the predetermination in the minds.rot-the Committee to take no jnotice of fhe evidence of the Police and. Judtifees of tbe necessity for. the license fied as that predetermina^o^.w^Siby the opinion of Mr $kerx^fi^ sleepily obtained for the purpo|B,"i^Rd!^he omission to comply, with th^^'^iuxpments of section 67, of th^.Aq^i, the recording In the minute book the reason for the reiusaL »wW that the license was not required in the neighborhood, and, that the site was objectionable on account of the public sciiool, whilst imraediateiyUfcerwards on the same evidence they gfante^a lioense to another person ;fpfxJv? ÜBe a few yards away, and adjoining a church, led irreßistably to; t&s ;inferenoe that in so acting the majority have not fairly exerojaecl ti&iitjjjlif * diction and that their action ra^,|e referred to a bias and not to such considerations as ought r fco f<f )jave guided them, and when we takYinio account the additional iac^thj^ the majority were either or. indirectly interested in tht^wner of Whyte'a Hotel (the.op^3M'^«s), and the solicitors appearip^f^iand against Gray's appU<Ja ;^i^p|ny ( tted that the only 6^eren<M-b^^eMthat application and Spelnj»tt?|y|rtir f flthat Grey had an interjes|i^ tnl^|i|(»ahold of his house whilst not, it was clear that Mj^fip'^ftn's ground of pompi^t^up^p^Bedirigly Bteongpne/?^-^: : 'f^iJf^|i| Mr E.B. Brown appear«d|fw the Licensing Committee, and v^after argument His Honor resdrved-judg-ment. ■ ■ ,;.;.' :'_■_. l^^ ■■■■■ - ... : .:j!it.fa!