LICENSING COMMITTEE ELECTIONS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2203, 19 May 1891, Page 3

LICENSING COMMITTEE ELECTIONS.

TO SSI EDITOR, Sib,—l noticed in your issue of Saturday an extract from an Oamaru paper re tbe opinion of " an eminent lawyer." I don't know how he procured hii eminence j he certainly did not through a knowledge of the New Zealand Licensing Act, as he will find that, unless the Aet is a farce, clauses 68, 74 and 78 gne full discretionary power to the Licensing Committees. As an antidote to the above indigestable " red herring " please, in all fair* ness, insert the following judgment just received from England:—" On | March 20 judgment was given by the House of Lords in the appeal case of Sharpe v, Wakefield. This case involved the discretionary power of the licensing authorities to grant or refuse I 'renewals' of publicans licenses on the sole ground of the licensed houae being unnecessary. In delivering judgment the Lord Chancellor said he did not think at any period of the' argument any of their Lordships doubted but that the judgment of the Court of Appeal must be affirmed, and that by the express language of the statute, which was still the governing statute on the subject. The granting of licenses was expressly within the discretion of the magistrates." Their Lordships being unanimous, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with costs. Writing en tbe subject of the judgment the Daily News says: —"The ceurse of the litigation has been remarkable for the unanimity of the judgment which it has evoked. It is rare indeed that upon a point of law which can in any sense be considered doubtful not only every court agrees, but every judge in every court. Yet so it has been here." ** Lord BramweU," the writer continues, "was equally clear. He thought that the magistrates would very likely be safe if they simply refused to renew and gave no reasons, but, at any rate, the reasons given in the present case were sufficient. To a similar effect were the otber judgments. Each annual grant of the license is in law a perfectly new grant, and although opinions were expressed that a renewal might properly be conceded more easily tban a fresh license, yet Lord Hiracheft was careful to point out that this did not excuse I the justices from the duty of inquiring on each occation.intojthe wants of the

I neighborhood." Lord Hirschell farther said in the course of his judgment: — " The publican is, of course, entitled 1 to look upon the magistrates as judges, and to expect from them judicial impartiality, bmt they are judges acting not enly for him but for the surrounding population, amd his claim is subservient to the public interest."—J am, etc., | W. E. Barker. !