APPEAL COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIII, Issue 144, 12 July 1901, Page 2

APPEAL COURT.

THE COMMONWEALTH HOTEL The hearing of argument in the case (of New Plymouth) v. O'Dfisooll, an applica f iou' to r-strain Mr Stanford, S.M., from dealing with the issue of a licence to the Hotel Oommonwexlth, was commoner d in tie Supreme Court to day. In reply to Mr Justice DennistoD Dr Findl y siid he did not allege malafides. Prohibition of further proceedings, on the part of defendants, to obtain a license was applied for on the 29th June. He argued that a was immovable in fact, and that r. i amplication for a new license could not be 9ranted. Mr Justice Williams asked whether it wis held that if a licm-o was ab oiu'ely tiven up, and another p-rsoi applied for a new license, such app'icati >n could b i granted. Dr Fin-Hay replied in <h<> nffi-mitiv*; butstatel thatcircumitaroe ofihiscas' were nt pinMl -nth thi onditions mentioned. He maintaiue Ith it the- e must b9 a vacant Jicensi before a ce* one could be applied for in a district limited to continuance. He fu'thsr submitted that an applic ition for anpw litense must be the fi rs t business, and that considt ration of it must be cm- 1 eluded by the Committae ; and that no subsequent occurrence, such as a su - render of a right oF lenewal, ehould bo invoked lo decide the application. IV The Committee could not grant a no* license on the 10th June, when the existing license did not expire till 30th June. Mr. Justic.i Edwards said that -lie license wis an authority to do a cert 'n act, and did not in such casoome i«,to' fores til! ar.otber licence bad expire 1. Concluding bis argument, Counsel submitted that if a house we -e utifi- f r oc-iupaion whea tin applica'io-i i lß i e before the Committee, tbe M gntr-.te hid proceeded on a wrong assump io < aud there should be a re-taaiing to d -' termiae whether at the time the app i cation was beard the premises w r« sufficient under tbe Act. Mr. Skerre't, for the defendant, contended that the plain position was that! 'he Lic9ndng Cummit'ee had jurisdiction to grant any number of appli cations f>r new licenses at any annual meeting unless at,y particular application g anted was brought within some prohibiting clause of the Statute. The sole prohibiten upon Lireesing Committees since law of was that the number of licenses should continue as they were. There had been two decisions upon that point and |'ie submitted hat they in effect decided that tbe sole prohibition was that the number of grantable licenses should not ba exceeded. There was no prohibition against the granting of a new license provided the number of grantable li Jines was not exceeded. The case was not coacluded,