LIQUOR IN ASHBURTON

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 788, 8 October 1929, Page 15

LIQUOR IN ASHBURTON

LICENSING CASE IN APPEAL COURT CHANGE IN BOUNDARIES Press Association WELLINGTON, Monday. The Court of Appeal, consisting of Air. Justice Herdman, Air. Justice Adams, Air. Justice AlacGregor and Air. Justice Ostler, was engaged this afternoon in hearing an application by Joseph Scales, of Ashburton, hotelkeeper, for a writ of certiorari against Air. H. A. Young, S.AI., and other members of the Mid-Canterbury Licensing Committee removing plaintiff’s application for a grant of a publican’s licence in respect of the Somerset Hotel, Ashburton, from the committee, and quashing its order refusing to hear the same, and alternatively-for a writ of mandamus commanding the committee to hear such application. The facts which give rise to the application are as follow: —In '*1902 a nolicence poll was carried in Ashburton and licences lapsed in June, 1903. In 1928 the boundaries were altered by the Electoral Boundaries Commission and then the district of Ashburton ■ was divided into two parts, each joined j to a licensing area. In each case the part of Ashburton joined to the other district contained a smaller population than the other part of the new district. As a result of this the town of Ashburton became part of the Alid-Can- ! t-Tbury licensing district. which. in- 1 eluded part of the Ellesmere district j and consequently the whole district of j Mid-Canterbury became a. licensing j area. A committee was duly set up j for the new district and functioned for the first time in June, 1929. Applications were received from holders of licences in the old Ellesmere district for renewals, which were granted. The present owners of four buildings in Ashburton which lost their licences in 1903 applied to the Licensing Committee at the same date for publicans’ licences. The Licensing Committee, however, held that it had no jurisdiction to grant licences. Four actions were accordingly brought against the Licensing Committee and the present case, having been removed into the Court of Appeal for argument, will be treated as a test case. AUCKLAND AFFECTED Addressing the Bench on behalf of the plaintiff, Air. A. F. Wright stated that the matter not only affected hotels in Ashburton, but also hotels in Temuka and .Lawrence, and some in the Auckland district. Three questions would need to be answered by the Court: district one in which licences may be granted? (2) If it is, may licences be granted in respect of premises situated in such portion of the district where the principle of no-licence formerly obtained? (3) If so. what are the machinery sections of the Act under which such licences may be granted? In other words, had the committee power to grant licences in respect of premises which formerly held licences in Ashburton?

Plaintiff had a clear right to apply for a licence, and if the Legislature had intended to take away that right it would have done so in the clearest terms, said Air. Wright. But all sections of the Act went to show that such was not its intention. It was never intended to deprive the Ashburton people of the right to regain their licences, no matter how much the township might grow. If defendant’s contention was correct restoration could never be sought save by legislation. The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow morning. TODAY’S PROCEEDINGS WELLINGTON, Today. Continuing the argument in support of plaintiff this morning before the Appeal Court, Air. AY. J. Sim said all questions arising out of the matter fell under two headings:—(l) Was the Ashburton district now part of a licensed district? and (2) what were the powers of the licensing committee in such a composite district? Dealing with the letter first counsel went on to compare the powers of the licensing committee in a licensed district with those of a committee in a place where restoration had been carried. He contended that section 30 of the Act of 1910 clearly recognised the authority to grant a licence where a licence of the description j applied for had not been renewed or i had ceased to exist. Air. Justice Adams: Can you renew a licence a quarter of a century after it has ceased to exist? Counsel: Certainly, I shall deal expressly with that point. ABSURD ANOMALY He continued that section 30 must have some amplifying effect on section 5 of the 190 S Act, otherwise section 5 would be a negation of the former section, which contemplated the renewal of licences when they had lapsed and the same section gave the Court ample jurisdiction to order the committee to hear the application. He characterised the position in Ashburton as anomalous to the point of absurdity. The recent national poll must be regarded as having superseded the no-licence poll of 1925, yet according to defendant’s view the licences could not be restored. Air. Justice Adams: That is not considered an unmixed blessing by a certain section of the community. Counsel: It is a violation of public opinion. Apart from the point of view of publicans, it is a public question. He argued that, although Ashburton had been brought into the “wet” district, if defendant’s view was accepted it was “dry” for all time, unless the Legislature, in its benevolence, intervened. If it had remained “dry” in a “dry” district, it. would still have the .right of restoration. By remaining “dry,” it would have a greater chance of getting its licence back than by being put into a “wet” district. “It is hard to imagine a greater absurdity, which I submit is one which the Legislature could never have intended,” added counsel. There was a. clear distinction underlying the whole Act between the granting of new licences and the reviving ! of licences which had lapsed. He j submitted that even if the court were ! to find that section 30 did not give j the committee the power to regrant ; these licences, then the committee must be deemed to have such power ; under section 11, as on a restoration; poll, in order to carry out the manifest intention of the Legislature.