THE SYDENHAM LICENSING APPEAL CASE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2361, 26 May 1892, Page 4

THE SYDENHAM LICENSING APPEAL CASE.

Wellington, May 23. In the Court of Appe.al to-day judgment was given in the case of Isitt and Others v. Taylor and Others. This was an appeal from the Sydenham Licensing Committee against an order made by his Honour Mr Justice Denniston, at Christchurch, on June 9th, 1891. The plaintiff's in the Court below, now respondents, who represent the publicans of Sydenham, complained that the Sydenham Licensing Committee, prior to their election, “ unlawfully and wilfully concerted, agreed, and promised each with the others and other of them and with tho members of a certain society known as the Sydenham Prohibition League and others who voted at the election to the effect that they, if elected, would pledge themselves to close the whole of the drinking bars in the district, and would grant no publicans’ licenses or renewals thereof.” Plaintiffs in the Court below sought to unseat the Committee on the ground of irregularity in the election. The decision of Mr Justice Denniston on this point was for the Committee, and this it is understood is not appealed against. The plaintiffs further asked—l, That the Committee be prohibited by the Supreme Court from exercising any jurisdiction with reference to applications for licenses; 2, For an injunction restraining the Committee from sitting; and 3, That applications for licenses be removed fry certiorari into the Supreme Court and determined by that Court or some person appointed by it, to the end that the plaintiffs might have more sure and speedy justice. The order of Mr Justice Denniston purported to restrain tiie defendants (the Committee) from refusing the licenses of the premises of the plaintiffs “ on such ground only that the licensing of such premises is not required by the majority of the ratepayers and adult male and female residents of the Sydenham licensing district,” and directed the defendants that in considering whether the licensing of such premises is required in the neighbourhood of such premises,” they were to consider “ whether such premises are required according to the reasonable wants of such of the residents as may desire to purchase liquor.” From this order the appellants (the Committee) now appealed. The appeal was allowed and the cross appeal disallowed, both without costs. Mr Bell, on behalf of the respondents and cross appellants, asked leave to appeal to the Privy Council from judgment granting the appeal and dismissing tho cross appeal. Leave to appeal was granted as asked