THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5103, 1 August 1877, Page 2

THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES.

Sin, —Your notice of the late decision of the Irish Court of Queen’s Bench on the duty of licensing magistrates to take into consideration the requirements of the district in granting a transfer of a public-house license, is likely to further bewilder the imbecile minds of some of the Licensing Courts of New Zealand. Will you allow me to explain that this Irish decision has no force in this colony. The Irish licensing law differs in many respects from the English and Scotch, and the decisions of Irish Judges are of no weight except in Ireland. The English, and, I believe, Scotch Judges have repeatedly decided that the licensing magistrates are bound to consider the wants of the district. In New Zealand, however, we have a statutory declaration on the subject. The Act of 1873 expressly declares that the Licensing Courts shall exercise their discretion in granting or refusing licenses, and “ shall not be obliged to grant them unless in their opinion there is a necessity for the public-house for which the application is made.” So whatever the Irish Bench may decide, there is no doubt about the IS ewZealandlaw ;though our Licensing Courts, as at Ravensbourne, in Otago, the other day, may shamelessly shirk the responsibility, and tell the poor people that their blood is on their heads, and that the Court will grant the license, because a few individuals back the publican’s application, without deciding that there is a necessity for it in the district. The London Daily Chronicle remarks on the Irish case ;—“ We presume the decision is in accordance with law ; but it is most unsatisfactory, except in so far as it shows how much our law stands in need of amendment. That the proportion of public-houses to the population should be taken into consideration, even the licensed victuallers themselves will not deny ; for we find them frequently opposing new licenses in their districts, as happened the other day in the ease of Mr. Smith’s application for a license for the Stock Exchange Vaults. As to the question of compensation for vested interests to which the Irish Judges referred iu their judgments, there is legally no such thing as a vested interest in a public-

house license beyond the twelve months for which it is granted. The person who obtainsa licenseor the first time knows that he only receives it for a year; and if he chooses to sell his interest in it he knows that he is dealing with what may be a comparatively worthless property. The person buying also knows that he cannot utilize his purchase unless he be granted a transfer. Pecuniary loss maybe sustained by one or both of the parties ; but it is ridiculous to speak of their vested interest, because they have none.”—l am, &c., William Fos.