HOTEL COMMONWEALTH CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIII, Issue 254, 28 October 1901, Page 2

HOTEL COMMONWEALTH CASE.

JUDGE CONOLLY'S DECISION. THE MOTION DISMISSED WITH £SO COSTS. STRONG KEMABKS BY THE JUDGE. PER PKESS ASSOCIATION. Wellington, October 26. Judge Conolly, this morning, delivered judgment in the case of the Hotel Commonwealth, argued recently at New Plymouth. The matter came into Court by way of a motion for an order that the application of Jeremiah O'Driscoll to Mr Stanford (as repre-. renting tbo Liceasi&g Committee for he Taranaki district) for a certificate authorising tbe issue of a new publican's license for the Hotel Commonwealth at New Plymouth, and all proceedings thereon and the certificate authorising the issue of tho license should be removed into the Suprem° ,oourt tr. be doalt with. " This," his Honor said, " was the second application to the Court to quash this license, The previous one was considered by the full Court, and was dismissed. The present application was on new grounds, the first of which was, that

before the application was heard Mr Stanford had promised one, A. J. 1 Mcintosh: that he would grant a publican's license in respect of the site on which the Hotel Commonwealth was afterwards built, if suitable buildings were erected." After reviewing correspondence telating to this matter, his donor s-iid, " be considered that there was nothing improp.tr either in the applicition or the answer; on the coq :rary, it appeared to him to be m 'S 1 ; reasonable to inquire, before sp-mding t very large sum of money, whether it would be expended in vain, and the inswer provided many s'rirgeDt conditions to be observed, and without which the application would not be granted, Thtre was not hie g in the fact that Mr Stanford expressed his opinion, in which the Inspector of licensed houses concurred, that another large ho'el was required in New Plymouth, and that the proposed site was suitable." The second ground alleged, in eflect, th*t Mr Stanford was pscuniarily interestedin the obtainingof tbelicens™, snd had received from Mr Mcintosh a large sum upon insufficient seourity, for which he rem»in»d indebted to Mr Mcintosh at the commencement of th,e inquiry into the application, and also at the time of hearing. With regard to this his Honor remarked, " That he was surprised to find such an allegation made, and even more so that it was not withdrawn after tha evideace in the affidavits and Mr Stanford's statement had been sesn." The motion b,i j fore the Court appeared to have been made on behalf of one, Thomas Prdthsy, who did not reside near the hotel in question and had no property near it, and whose right to intervene depended solely upon his being a ratepayer in New Plymouth. Fretheyj appeared, to his Honor, to hnve al-! lowed himself to have been made a' tool of by some other parson", who conceal* d their pirt in the transaction. The alkgition meant, in plain English, that Mr Stanford had been ru-ibed. H : s Honor regretted that Frethey's counsel did not see his way to withdraw this allegation, ins eid of endeavouring to give it a more harmless meaning. The Court reviewed the f«ts, which were shor'ly these. In June, 1900, Mr Stanford heird of übuus f->ur acres of lind close r.o town being offered tor lease at a low rental. He consultfcd Mcintosh ns a man of business and was advised to apply for the lease and build. He said he had not ihe money, when Mr Mcintosh said he would find what cash was required on proper security aod interest at 7 per cent. This was settled, the lease was obtained and payrni nts were advanced by Mr McIntos'■■, amounting to J9IQ; of this* .£6lO nas advanced by Is* JiWuary, 1901. It was not until after this d&t-i tlmt the mortgage deed wag prepared, <md until ir, was pres-;nfc«d f orsigoaturu Mr Stanford thought it was the money of somo custom r of the Bank that he was receiving. This therefore showed, to his Honor's mind, that when he wrote the letter to which 'exception had taken, he cruld noS have con-sidr-rel himself a debtor if Mr Mc'n-to.-h's; but it did occur to sime time later, that it was undesirable he bhould be so when 'he appVoition f"r the license for the Hotel Commonwtal h was considered. This was partly br mghfc about by an anonymous Utter, grcssly misstating the facts and making vile insinuations, which tie Minister for Justic», very stra jgely as it appeared to his Honor, forwarded to Mr Stanford. Th 9 let.ter should have been consignei to the waste piper basket, though opinions might differ on this point. The Minister having

treated it as of some importance, Mrl Stanford took immediate steps to free himself from any liability to Mr Mcintosh, and be did so the day before the meeting of the Licensing Committee. The readiness with which a new mortgage was found was alone sufficient, in his Honor's opinion, to contradict the assertion that the security was insufficient, and he had no hesitation in describing the assertion, on the second groucd, to be false and malicicus. As to the third and fourth grounds, tint Mr Stafford dUn t exorcise judicial discretion, but acted upon premeditation and bias, and that there was reasonable ground for apprehension that he was biased, the cases bearing on matter ol bias, tended to show that " mere suspicion, that a judge or justice may be biassed, is not sufficient; he must be substantially interested in the proceedings so as to have re»l bins.". " What evidence is there that Mr Stanford hid any substantial interest in the granting of a license to the Hotel Commonwealth, or in fact that he bad any interest at all ? I fail to find any." He had no doubt expressed an opinion that another hotel was required in New Plymouth, that the proposed site was a good one, and that if a proper house was built upon that site he would grant a certificate for a license for it; but this did not in any way create any interest in him in the "matter. In fact, since the (apparent interpretation of pecuniary advantage contained in the second ground had not been relied upon there appear rid to his Honor to be nothing left upon which any substantial interest could be contended for. The Court found that with regard to the Magistrate's statement (alleged to be incorrect) that twelve witnesses out of thirteen gave direct testimony that more hotel accommodttion was badly wanted ia New Plymouth, the number of witnesses examined was eighteen, but several were not questioned on this point, and twelve did state circuno--1 stances showing more accommodation to be needed. Counsel for the opposing parties called no witnesses in opposition to the license. His Honor concluded : " I think that upon the whole of the evidence it is plain not only that Mr Stanford had no interest in the matter from which bias can be inferred, but that there was no i reasonable ground for apprehension that he would be, or wa», biased. That some persons may have entertained suspicions in the matter is quite beside the question. There are al.vays to be found some persons who suspect bad motives for any decision ,of which they do not approve. After consideration, I cm only repaat as strongly as [ did at the hearing, that 1 this application was quite uncalled for, and bears strong indications of having been actuated by 'malice, it bjing admitted that the applicant had no per--1 sonal interests in the matter. He is 1 content to be the tool of others, who for some unknown reason desire to close a first-class hotel, which by the evidence is much wanted in New Ply--1 mouth, and to ruin the occupier, there 1 being no suggestion that the house is not required or is not in all respects • j suitable, or that the licensee does not conduct it fairly."

Tbe motion was therefore dismissed

Mr. A. R. Atkinson, who received judgment on behalf of the mover of the motion, explained that, although Mr. Frethey was responsible for whatever appeared in the affidavit, he (Mr. Atkinson) accepted the full legal and moral responsibility for wha'ever legal inference he might have drawn from it. and be did not desire that blame should be put on anyone else. Mr. Skerrett applied for oasts as on an action for £2OOO, but after argument His Honor fixed the costs at £SO, and ordered execution to be stayed for one month, pending consideration by the losing side as to whether there should be an appeal.