Important Decision.

Manawatu Standard, Volume X, Issue 41, 16 July 1885, Page 2

Important Decision.

, At the Auckland Supreme Cpurt , sitting m banco, last week, Mr Justice,. Gillies, delivered an important Judgment j interesting both to hotelkeepers aii.d iicenß'ing 'coramitteea. It "appears that 'the. plaintift, H.C. Richmond, licensee of the Cosmopolitan Hotel made application tio the Auckland North. Licensmg'Committee for a renewal of his certificate. No out side objection was lodged, por was there any" opposition-"a t the iijeefth.». The committee, however, took the objection that the license was not required !inthe district, and- that . the house .wag unsuit,able. The Committee, • therefore," adiourned the application/ and a notice, signed by the chairman, was s;erved o n Richmond. At the adiourned meeting the application was renewed ;. no evidence was given m support of the committee's objections, and, without hearing any evidence, the application was refused. Richmond then applied to. the Snpreme Court for :a mandamus to compel the committee to 'issue, a certificate. The defence .of the committeei was simply that it was ' .optiori'al ' with /.them? to grant or refuse an;application.■■■for^a-ren-ewal, and m this case they had refused the application. The several points at issue weref— "Whether the applicant had a right to the, renewal, aridif so, was it a qualified or an absolute ."right ; further, had the committee the discretionary power claimed by them. After lengthy . arguments, his Honor said that . section 63 of the Licensing Act w»« an over-rid-ing clanse-^— especially 'over-riding everything «lse,in the Act. BJe could put no other f construction on hV than 'that the committee could .of their own knowledge raise an objection, mention it, and give the applicant art opportunity of replying to it. The committee could Hot refuse to hear evidence, or they would be .'acting contrary to the Act. and no ■-judically" In this case theyhad stated' their object tions,an(T : no evidence liadbeen 'given'by the applicant to refute them.: Tt waaab-. ieK>\i;«te}y plear nnde^'i this ; section, thas. ob--jectiods should not be pat- oufcof. <sigh'tjnerely because *ni ..objector^^ . name forward.j The committe might of their !owri. motion; take-notice of what : would be nh objection to the renewal of a license. The committee had acted quite m accordance with the Act, and under the^e cirenmstances he saw no necessity for. a writ of .manilamus for them to hear and determine the application, The writ was re : fused.