ALLEGED LICENSING BREACH

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 327, 1 March 1910, Page 5

ALLEGED LICENSING BREACH

THE BOOTH AT THE \YAIT\R\ i-iACES. DEFENDANT CONVICTED. In the Magistrate's Court vesterchv morning Mr. ti. S. Kitziierbert,'S M de livered lu s reserved judgment in the ease, ncard last Monday, in which I nomas Henry Sims, licensee of tn,. lank, Hotel, was charged (1) with having sold liquor, and (2) with bavin-, exposed litjnor fo r sale, at the Ix-ppe" ton racecourse on December •>, this >emg a place at which his license did not p«rmit him to sell liquor. When the case was heard last week Wile facts were Hot disputed, it bei'i-r admitted by Mr. B. Spence, counsel for defendant, that liquor had been sold and exposed for sale by defendant at the Waitara races on December 2. 1001), that the racecourse was within the Taranaki licensing district, that the conditional license obtained by defendant had not been obtained on a certifica'o irom the Taranaki Licensing Committee, and that defendant had been told by members of the Taranaki Licensing Committee that they could not grant him a certificate for a conditional license, because that committee had decided not to grant certificates for conditional licenses to licensees living in another district, over which they had no controi.

„ The certificate on which the conditional license was issued was granted by the Stratford Licensing Committee which, Sergea/nt Haddreil contended, had no jurisdiction in the Taran.iki licensing district, by virtue of section 4 of the Licensing Act. in reply, Mr. Spence argued that the Court could not go behind the license and enquire into the circumstances or conditions 'in which it wis granted. There was a de facto license, issued by the proper authority, the Taranatci County Council, on a certificate from a properly constituted licensing authority, and the certificate mi which it -,vas issued could only be quashed by certiorari proceedings in the Supreme Court. Mr. Fitzherbert said the -whole question turned on whether the certificate on which the license was issued wis good on its face. If it were, the decision in the cases quoted by Mr. Spence applied. His Worship reviewed these cases, and then pointed out that in the New Zealand case of Soarl v. McArdle. an appeal decided by Chief Justice Prendergast in the Supreme Court in 1807, iHiacl been held that tile certificate in question in that case was had on the face of it. and therefore tV Magistrate nac'f powr'r to go behind the certificate and enquire how the license was granted. Tie was therefore bound by that decision if ,h<> found the present certificate to he bad o;i its fa?e. I7e was of opinion that it was b"d. liecause it showed that the Strntf-> v d Committee had granted ;i ,•• r'ifieate tor a TTcenso to sell liquor at Lei)p«rton, a nlace which was outside the Committee's district. Under the Licensing Act licenses could only be granted by the licensing committee 'for the district in which they were intended to talce effect, and therefore the Stratford Cooihad done an act that was not within its jurisdiction. His Worship therefore found that, an ofl'ence had been committed. On the first charge, defendant was convicted and fined £5 and costs 7s, and on the second he. was convicted and discharged. ''The fine is made light," added Mr. Fitzherbert. ••because it is \ really only a technical breach of the law.' The'defendant may have thought he had the right to go to any licensing committee to gel the certificate."