LICENSING.
NEWTOWN LO AL OPTION.POL&.
VIEWB OF APPEK. OOUBT JUDGES.
LEGISLATURE AT FAULT. FEB PEEBB ABBOOIATIOV. Wellington July 31. In the Newtow.idi-e,ofthefiveju-lga« who heard it three, the Chief Jjßtio«, Justices Dai nis on and Cooper, were of opinion a mandamus c iuld not be i su:i becau e of the judgment of the >;ourt, Use other two, Juitices Edward* and Conolly, were in favour of directing its is&ue.
Justice Edwards read a very long ju jgmen', in which he set ou' fully the grave i'j niei iiittcted on the community by tho lapsing of a pollj And pointed out some absurdities tbit would arise. Amu gs' others, he contended Nowtown would become a pfromm'ion erfa for ever by prohibition ->, ing obtained in this way; als*, thtfc tenants could not claim the relief especially given by the Act for their benefit, unless there was a pill. Justice D -nniston also commented srongly on the position arrived at by he carelessness of the legislature in n it providing what was to be done wh>n a poll was declared void. The ftuU was theirs not the Court's, forth* Court had no power to do what the legislature had failed to do. Ha expresied great sympathy with the lioensees in what be ctiled the "portentous" consequence of the state of he law, and hinted it was the daty of P.r'iament to set matters straight at once. The judgment of the mtjority as «#"" out by Sir Robert Btout hinge) largely on the question of determination. It was not sufficient that tin re should be i poll, there mist be a determination, for the electors stood in the place of the former licensing authority. The contention that the law was satisfied if he determination came to was afterwards set »side did not appear to him to have any warranty, as there was no determination ever come to. li the p ->ll was declared void there was nothing left to guide the oommittee in the zeroise of its functione, and it was the mandate of the electors that the oommittee must obay. The section was very emphatic, the words being "un'il the electors of a district have preriously determined." They had not determined the propositions if the poll was void. If they had determined any propositions then this determination leroained. The only question to decide really was whether, as the terms, of section 3 had not been complied With, the Committed cciuld is we renewals, and in his opinion it had no jurisdiction to do so, H > referred to section 52 of 'he Act of 1881, which give power to hold a new poll, and in Irs opinion it 'vis s'ill in force. Another matter on wh eh he was not oleir, but was not ciHed on to decide, -<aa whether the Magistrate could declaro the poll void. Justice DenmV.on slso adversely crit : c'sed the leaving of such important dec : sions solely to one Magistrate.
WANGA.NOI WHOLESALE LIOBNBES. In the ppplicifcion for a writ to quash the grir.ting of new wholesale liceD6o3 by the Wangantti Lioensing Omraistee, the Ooart (the Chief Just tioe dissenting) found such license* do not oome within the meimog ordu nary puolicacs lie nB?, acid the application was dismissed with £25 oasts. ..
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19030801.2.12
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 180, 1 August 1903, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
539LICENSING. Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 180, 1 August 1903, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.