PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL

Otago Witness, Issue 4028, 26 May 1931, Page 79

PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL

SCALES v. YOUNG AND OTHERS (From Our Own Correspondent.) , LONDON, April 1. lhe appeal case, Scales v. Young and others, brought before the Judicial" Committee of the Privy Council, lasted for five days. The Lords of Appeal were Lords Dui.edin (chairman), Atkin, Blanesburgh, Thaiikerton. and Macmillan Sir Boyd Alerriman, K.C., Air A. F. Wright (New Zealand barrister), and Mr C. L. Henderson appeared for the appellant, and Air Blanco White and Mr Hancock for the respondents. The appeal is from a judgment and order,of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, dated November 6, 1929. dismissing a motion by the appellant for writs of certiorari and mandamus to issue against the respondents because the respondents as a licensing committee had refused to hear and determine an application by the appellant for a license in respect of the Somerset Hotel, Ashburton on the ground that they had no jurisdiction so to do. lhe question raised is whether the respondents, who are the Licensing Committee of the Alid-Canterbury Licensing District, have jurisdiction to hear and deternune an application for a publican’s license in that part of the licensing district of Mid-Canterbury, which comprises the township ot Ashburton; or whether, as has been decided by the Court of Appeal the township of Ashburton is an area in which no licenses can ever be issued owing to the operation of the New Zealand Licensing Acts. Through his counsel, the appellant submitted that the judgment and order of tbe 1 ,? rt o£ A .P,P eal °f . New Zealand should be set aside, and in lieu thereof a declaration made that the respondents have .jurisdiction to hear and determine the application of the appellant, and that the application ought to proceed and be dealt with on its merits for the following among other reasons: — Because the Licensing Committee of Alid-Canterbury has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application of the appellant for a license in respect of the somerset Hotel, Ashburton. Because there has been no decision bv the electors of the district of Alid-Canter-bury to prohibit the grant of licenses in that part ot the district which comprises the township of Ashburton. Because that portion of the Alid-Canter-buiy. district which was formerly in the distiict of Ashburton is to be deemed to be an area in which there has been a restoration of licenses. Because the . application of the appellant is. an application for the substitution ot a license or an application in respect ota license which has lapsed and/or *has otherwise ceased to exist, and mav accordingly be granted by virtue of the provisions of section 30 of the Licensin'* Amendment Act, 1910, and/or section 128 of the Licensing Act, 1908. Because there are no provisions in the licensing legislation of New 'Zealand which prevent the Mid-Canterbury Licensing. Committee from exercising their discretion as to the grant of a license upon the appellants application. Because the judgment and order appealed from were erroneous and to be reversed. The respondents submitted that the appeal or the appellant should be dismissed loi the following, amongst other reasons:— * ’ Because the respondents have no power to grant licenses save under the provisions of the Licensing Acts, and there is no power under the Licensing Acts to tt' 3 ? 1 ! 3 , er ! s , G respect of the Somerset Hotel in Ashburton. Because section 30 of the Licensing Amendment Act, 1910, and section I°B ot the Licensing Act. 1908. which were the sections relied on by the appellant, git e no power to grant a license in respect of the said hotel. Because the appellant’s application for a license was not within the time limited by the said section 30. Because under section 27 of the Licensing Act, 1908. and section 12 (b) ot the Licensing Amendment Act, 1910, InrnJ 0311 ?! i of the n ?f licen se poll in the ionner Ashburton district is s tPl in force-where the Somerset Hotel is situate. Because it would be contrary to the po.icy or the Legislature to" restore licenses in an area where they had been abolished by the popular vote without a ‘V avour restoration of threefirths of the voters affected. Because there is no evidence of any majority ot voters in favour of restoration, either in the whole Mid-Canterbnry district or m the' portion of it formerly <n the Ashburton district. Because it is the intention of the le nslature appearing from the Licensing Acts that a portion, of a no-license district transferred to a district where licenses ilSCif ren,ain ' r.>ecause the order of the Court of AptnS 1 A° 1 m' CW , Z ? ala '; d "■•"■s right and ought to be. affirmed tor the reasons given in the unanimous judgments of the court Judgment was reserved.

A cable message received from London on April 24 stated that the anneal was dismissed with costs. Officials of the New Zealand Alliance state that the judgment c l °” s ] I . derable importance, as it affects some 16 1 menses formerly existing in the Ashburton district, and in addition makes it clear that licenses cannot be restored bv change ot electoral boundaries. Bv reason of changes in the South Island electorates Ashburton, which had fonnely closed all hotel bars under no-license, was transferred to the electorate of Ellesmere and became part of a licensed area. Application was then made for restoration of licenses m Ashburton, but the Licensing Committee refused the applications on the grounds that they had no power to grant them. Appeal was then made to the court to compel the committee to grant the licenses, but this was contested bv the New Zealand Alliance, and the court <mv* its decision against the applicants. 'Not satisfied with this judgment, the applicants carried the matter to the Privv Wltb the result that it is now definitely settled that Ashburton remains free from licensed bars.