The Daily News. MONDAY, JULY-8, 1901. CONTEMPORARY OPINION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIII, Issue 140, 8 July 1901, Page 2

The Daily News. MONDAY, JULY-8, 1901. CONTEMPORARY OPINION.

The issue of a licsnsa to the Hot'] Commonwealth is exciting a pond de vl of attention. The Wangjnni Chronicle says : —" The circurcs''ance? surrounding the granting of a new hotel license in New Plymouth are such as to give if much more than local insist. In that town the Magistrate, Mr. Siardfcri, is the sale administrator of the licensing laws. • He holds this responsible positioa not because the people of New Plymouth are apathetic in regard to licensing matters, but b cau;e of an informality in connection with tlw last licencing e'ection rendering the nominations void. Mr. Stanford cannot claim to have had doub 1 ; as to 1 hiwishes of the people as to whether or not the licenses should ba increased. At the last local option poll they declared emphatically against any increase. Of course, in the face of that vote, no additional license could have been granted in the didtrict, but in thin case the legal obstacle has keen got oyer by the Licensing Bench (Mr. Stanford) sanctioning what was pr«p • tic illy the removal of a license from Bell Blook, four miles from New Plymouth, to the centre of the town itself. There were two other applications for licensfs before the Bench, one by Mr. John Brennan for a l'canse for a four-roomed cottageat Bell Block, an! another by Mr. John Searlefora hoise known as the Jubilee Villa. Toe Bpplications wero strongly opposed, th objectors being represented by Dr. Pindlay. and Mr. Atkinson, of Wel- | liDgten, Mr. Jeremiah O'Drisroll's application was for a new building proposed to be called the Commonwealth Hotel, and situated opposite the railway station. Now, Mr. O'Di iecol was the holder of the Bull Block license, wh'ch license was in actual existence at the time of the application on behalf of the Commonwealth Hofctl, and consequently, aa Dr. .Findlay pointed out, it was an application for the surrender of the license a'. Bell Rlcck and the grant of a to the same person in town. Had the application been for a removal the dls tance limit would have rendered it informal. Section 97 of the Act of 181 authorises th© removal of licenses, but the subs-quent legissation ef 1895 limited the distance wbinb a liceos? could be moved to a quarter of a mile. The whole trend of legislation had been to place in the hands of the people the control not only of the number of licensed houses, but their locality, and Dr. Findlay asserted that 1! to permit what was contemplated would be to perpetrate a fraud on the Wei' Mr. Stanford has permitted what was contemplitcd. On Monday la3t be delivered a lengthy judgment, the publicit ion of which occupied three columns of the Daily News. We followed the case and we have re'.d the judgment carefully, and we roust confess that we are a* a loss to understand how an intoUigert Magistrate could conscientiomly arrive a-, the conclusion that the application should be granted. There was nothing in th« evidence to justify the granting of a license to the new house. Eighteen witnesses were cal'ed in Bujp°>rt of the application; and not one of them said a word about the n»edt.f another licensed bar. burden of their complaint was the scarcity of accommodation at busy time?, and a good deal of their evidence in this respect waa discounted and disproved, Indeed, in

the course of the same judgement, and in giving his reason for refusing tha application for a license for the Jubilea Villa, Mr Stanford kid himself opea to a charge of gross inconsistency. In the face of his-tiwn words he will find it difficult to justify his decision. He Siid:—

"Taking Mr Soarle's application first, the Jubilee Villa is at present a lodging house, and granting a license to it would in no way give increased accommodation to the pub'ic To grant this ajplicatioi, would merely be to give increased facilitiesfor obtaining alcoholic liquor, and thera io evidence to show thatsuch increased f«ci-1 lities are required." " There is ! o evidence that such increased facilities aro required !" Soj siid Mr Stanford himself. Thee why did he grant sucfe increased facilities? Why did. he take it upan himself to fly in the faca cf public opinion as unmistakenbly expressed at ths ballot-box? If more accommodation was required, it was provided by the new buildiDg, without the license. Tiie decision, to our mind, is antagonistic to the public interest*, in not supported by evidence, and is op n to the suspicion of bias. Esrly in the case Mr. Atkinson, on behalf of the objectors for whom he appeared, ob jected to Mr. Stanford's competency t • adjudicate on Mr. O'Driscoll's spplication, on the ground of pecimia'y l.ia= ■jr riasonable suspicion of the nam", through his relation with a parsoncooneefcad with the app'icition." We understand that the person referred ! o i-j the owter of tt o building and the purchas rof the Bell Block piopo.'ty. We are not in a pisiti m to say t ha f the suggested allegation contained in M". A kiusou's objection is true, but if it is is is a Vnry serious matter and one which greatly concerns tha pu u l : c, T: e suspicion having be»n raised, and, in our opinion, intensified by. the inex plicable decision of Mr Stanford, it should certainly be thoroughly investigated. The well-being of the public which depends in such a large measure on the purity of the Judical Bench - and the reputation of the Magistrate hisiself, render it imperative that Mr. Atkin'on's cbargs of bias should be either proved or disproved. The ma' ter is not rendered »ny more easy of understanding by Mr. Stanford's reference, in his judgment, to the facb that as far as August of las': yeI', 1 ', long before Mr. O'Driscoll and the Commonwealth Hotl appeared on the scene, he (Mr. Stanford)) " r qiie-tel the Sergeant of P lice, who is al-<" I-spector of licenced houses, to rep i" to him whether a nsw hotel ihe railway station was rtquiied I'o"il e accommodation of the public." Why did Mr. Stanford, bef. rj any applic - tinn was before him, desire t> ki w whe'h. r a licensed hou»~e was requir d on this particular 8f:ot? Why did hj« in his jugment', quote the then expressed opinion of the Sergeant if Police that such a house w* s itquirod, and ignore tha Fame officer's sworn testimony, as given b- fore him on tKe hearing of the app'ications for a fie-h liconte, " that he bad never offi jaly had a complaint of inati'i y to ge accommodation, except from na f .iv?»," and that "he was satisfi d a II e sad house was not r< quired ?" Bi»c. Sergeant Stagpoole submitted 'h>>'pp>rt in August last, consili rabl < ad iiio s have been made to at least one i f the exis'ing hote's and tha Commonwealth Hotel has been erect»d, fict-< which should, *s a matter of common sens •. hive warranted tha most credeiic being attached to his latest official tes'imcny. As we have said, the iiitere t-i of-the public, the r putation o' the Magistrate, and, we miy sdd, th'i henour of the B?n h of Justice, demand tha 1 ; this ex'riordinary case should ba t'orough'y inv atig.ifc d." |