BIAS PROVED.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 October 1920, Page 5

BIAS PROVED.

( KEFUSAL OF HOTEL jl an iNTERj?sraNa By TeUpwn.-fteis ' 'wj'f-sk « Auckland, LMt •%*:*. /J The Bay of Inlands Licensing OOttmSU ' 1 tee's recent order refusing & renew! 1 1 of the license to the Bute of Msi - '■ ■'"3 borough Hotel, Russell, wm euashed fc r "4 Mr. Justice Salmond at the Supren > "'9 Court to-day, on the ground that eel r < % tain members of the committee {\% placed themselves in such & poaiticfc '.' '*% that they could reasonably be thoagm -- to be affected by bias. i "'' I His Honor, in giving judgment, said .**s the plaintiffs, the licensee and the owi- 1 ers of the hotel, alleged that the refl ,' 1 reason for the defendants' refueal. ft ? 'il renew the license was that tie preffittfa ''J were out of date, and that a new bow * '« wag required. He vat of opinion, hof, hj ever, that that allegation had not besjt ' ~,k proved, and that the question of f£j| «'•'> disrepair of the premises was th» tnfl ~ 'i reason for thei committee's decision, •. ' :<I J In regard to the question of Mas, Us '"' % Honor said that certain members of tip ' -M committee had expressed the opinka) ',?■*% that the time had come when a, fief ''•s hotel at Russell was required. The d«« Sji cisioai of the committee might han! 1 been perfectly just and nonest, and yet' ''S be invalidated by circumstances eufflalent ' J to show an antecedent likelihood of '4 partiality. The members concern*! - $ seemed to have gone far beyoid a mete ' u expression of aii opinion, because they • ,i« publicly declared they would not woe*. - ..$ the license unless, the premises 'vent re* ■■ i built. They thus pledged themselves k4 pot to refuße the license, but to refuse k it for an irrelevant reason.. By so &6> > J lag they wrongly placed themselves Hi ' such a position that they could Be rea* i 1 sonably thought to be affected by Mast : ' He was satisfied, on the other hairf, ' that they had really determined th» ' 1 matter without bias, but in view of the j| facta the order must be quashed. Th*> "s application for a renewal of 'the license ' * would therefore stand as if it had. not ■ " yet been heard, and the date for hearing ."t would be fixed. ;$■ f ,