LICENCE QUASHED

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 944, 10 April 1930, Page 1

LICENCE QUASHED

KAMO SPRINGS HOTEL CASE ISSUED WITHOUT JURISDICTION Finding that the Marsden Licensing Committee, in granting a publican's licence for the Kamo Springs Hotel, on June 29 last year, had acted without jurisdiction, Mr. Justice Herdman, in a reserved judgment today, issued a writ of certiorari quashing the licence. The motion was put forward by illiam Gwyn and James Jackson, two Marsden electors, wno cited Guy N. Morris, chairman and members of the Marsden Licensing Committee as defendants. Reviewing the facts, his Honour said that in 1917 a licence existed for the Kamo Springs Hotel, and in June that year, an application was lodged for the renewal of the licence, but it was withdrawn. Simultaneously, application was made for a publican’s licence at Poroti in place of an accommodation licence, which had been in existence. This publican's licence was granted but was subsequently quashed by the Supreme Court. Since 1917 until June last year, no licence had been granted for the Kamo Springs Hotel. The effect of granting the Kamo Springs licence last ycltr. said his Honour, was to increase the number of publicans' licences in the Marsden Licensing District over the number that existed at the various annual meetings of the committee held since June 5, 1923. His Honour said:—"lt will be seen therefore that in 1917 the Kamo Springs Hotel licence, which was not renewed, accordingly ceased to exist. The licence has been dead for 12 years.” Commenting upon the effect of Section 30 of "The Licensing Amendment Act of 1910,” and subsequent amendments, His Honour said that when the clauses were considered as a whole, as they must be, the effect was quite plain. It gave a restrictive right only to a person to have a licence restored which had been lost by accident. error or forfeiture. The action for restoration required at the first annual meeting after forfeiture, nonrenewal or cesser, or the next annual meeting, had not been taken in this case. “The time within which application could be made for a licence in substitution for the publican’s licence, which was allowed to lapse 12 years ago, has long since expired," added the judge. “Since that date poils have been taken, the will of the electors has been expressed and boundaries have undergone some change, but no application to restore this licence -was lodged until the year 1929.” His Honour concluded his judgment by referring to Mr. Justice Adams's interpretation 9f section 30 of the 1910 Act in the Scales v. Young case. Mr. Justice Adams’s view Was: “Section 30 of the Act of 1910 does not confer jurisdiction to increase the number of licences in any district. It is in fact a disabling and not au enabling section, and is supplementary to the earlier sections under which licences might be granted in an ordinary licensing district. Subsection 1 prohibits the grant of any new licence except under a determination for restoration, an increase provided for in section 144 of the Licensing Act, 190 S, in substitution for a licence which has been forfeited, or has not been renewed or has otherwise ceased to exist. The annual meeting referred to in that sub-section 2 st which the application for a licence to fill the vacancy caused by lapse or cesser can be granted is the ‘first annual meeting after the forfeiture non-renewal, or ceoeer of the former licence, or the annual meeting at which a renewal of the former licence might have been granted if duly applied for.” Mr. Tuck appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. Richmond for the defendants.