TO WHOM ARE LICENSE FEES PAYABLE.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 986, 19 January 1883, Page 2

TO WHOM ARE LICENSE FEES PAYABLE.

A case of importance to publicans in town districts was heard at the R.M. Court to-day', before C. A. Wray, Esq. Mr Samuel Caldwell, Chairman and Treasurer of the Waverley Town Board, proceeded against William Mitcheson, hotelkeeper,. Waverley, by information, for having on the 30th December sold to one Charles Christiansen a glass of porter without being duly licensed to sell.

Mr Barnicoat, of Messrs Borlase and Barnicoat, Wanganui, appeared for the informant, and Mr Barton for defendant, who admitted having sold the porter but not illegally. The case was really a test one as to whether the license fee should be ; paid to the Town Board or the County Council,

Mr Barnicoat stated that the information was laid' under section 159 of the Licensing Act, 1881—“ ho person shall sell or expose for sale any liquor without being duly licensed to sell the same, or at any place where he is not authorised to sell the same.” This was not an ordinary case of an attempt to evade the law. He had no doubt Mr Mitcheson acted in a perfectly bona fide manner in believing he had a license to sell the porter, but the proceedings were brought by the Chairman and Treasurer of the Wayerley Town Board to test the legality or otherwise of that license. The object was to decide conflicting claims between the Board and Council. The 'Board claimed that under the Licensing Act, 1881, it was only the treasurer of the local body to whom - fees were payable, and although no doubt Mr Mitcheson had obtained and paid for a license, it was not obtained from the Board. It was contended by informant that since the 30th June defendant had no proper license. He Mr (Barnicoat) called attention to the'provisions of the Act relating to the procedure to obtain a license. The first step to be taken was for the publican to apply to the Licensing Committee. The next step was for the committee to issue a certificate and here the functions of the committee ended. The certificate was not in itself a license, but the publican could please himself whether or not he took one out. The Gazette proclamation defining the boundaries of Waverley town district was put in and he mentioned"' that, ■by section 109 of the Licensing Act, fees for all licenses granted under the Act should be paid to the person acting as treasurer in the town and district. There he admitted there had been difficulties once regarding which body the fee should be paid to, but they had been se*t at rest by a judgment of Judge Williams in a case of Godfrey v Sullivan heard at Dunedin. He read a report of this case which appeared in the Otago Witness. In this instance the license fee was paid to the Town Board and the County Council sued the Board to recover it. His Honor sustained the right of the Board. In the present case it was contended that defendant had obtained his license from a person who bad no authority to ' give it him at all. It might be a hard case for him, but it was also a hard case for’ the Hoad Board, which had been hampered owing to not being able to collect these debts. No doubt it was a mistake on the part of the Licensing Committee, in not directing that the fees should be payable to the Board. The Board could not proceed against the Council, and had, therefore, to take action against Mr Mitcheson. It would have been a graceful action for the County Council to have .returned this fee, this having been done by all other County Councils under similar circumstances. It was also to be remarked that while the Council bad only received £25 for the license, the Board should have received and were entitled to, £4O. Formal evidence was culled to prove fhe snpplyiticj- of the H<jnoi- and the constitution of the Board. For the defence Mr Barton submitted that the Licensing Committee had made the mistake, which cleared the publican, but did not settle the matter between the two pnbh’c bodies. He admitted, that the fee should properly he paid to . the Board, but it was sufficient: for the publican to pay the money to the officer who held the duplicate certificate.

W. L. .Dean, Cierk to the Waverley Licensing Committee proved the granting of a certificate to tlie defendant, and deposed to haviiiir sent the duplicate 'certificate to ilie Treasurer ot the Patea Con ivy Council. His Worship was satisfied the Supreme Court had decided that town dis-

tricts were entitled to these fees. He could not understand, after such an authoritative opinion being given, why the County Council-had not accepted the position and restored the money. Mr Barton : I cannot state officially, but I believe the County Council are going to do it. They have not seen this decision bat took the opinion of Mr Ollivier in Wellington. Mr Barnicoat: The Pa tea County Council won’t make a compromise, or even reply to letters. I believe I can settle the matter with my friend without a decision being given. * His Worship thought it would be the best way out of the difficulty. Counsel having consulted privately, His Worship deferred judgment nntil after the next meeting of the County Council.