THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1893. THE LICENSING ACT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2462, 9 February 1893, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1893. THE LICENSING ACT.

The long-delayed decision of the Court of Appeal in the Sydenham Licensing Committee case has at last been given, with the result that the prohibitionists have been defeated. The Court of Appeal has now laid it down that the people have not the power to shut up public houses if they do not want them ; and thus made it clear that the present Licensing Act is not a Local Option Act. Very fine points of law are involved in this decision. Supposing, for instance, an ordinary licensing committee decided to shut up a public house it can do so, but according to the finding of the Court of Appeal a prohibition committee can’t. Indeed, only for the decision of Judge Williams in Dunedin, we should feel inclined to believe that a prohibition committee could not shut up a public house which was badly managed. In Dunedin an ordinary committee shut up twelve public houses because they were not wanted; in Sydenham a prohibition committee shut up four or five houses on the same grounds, but they are now told by the Court of Appeal that they had no right to do so. This looks strange, but the nice way in which the court got over the difficulty is still more wonderful. The Court of Appeal says, in effect: — “ If the members of a committee pledge themselves to perform a certain act before election they render themselves incapable of bringing a judicial mind to bear on it after election, and consequently they are unfit to deal with the matter.” Now that is the whole judgment of the Court of Appeal summed up in a brief understandable form. The law then is, committees who say nothing can shut up public houses ; but committees who pledge themselves to prohibition cannot. Only for the decision of Judge Williams in Dunedin, therefore, it would have been to the interest of publicans to elect prohibitionists in future, as on the committee they would have them muzzled. But Judge Williams’ decision looks like a reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeal. Roslyn elected a prohibition committee just like Sydenham, and like Sydenham again, the Roslyn committee shut up the public houses. One of the publicans appealed to the Supreme Court, but Judge Williams dismissed the appeal. Now is not this strange 1 The Court of Appeal says.a prohibition committee cannot bring a judicial mind to boar on toe subject; therefore, it is unfit to close a public house ; Judge Williams says a prohibition committee is quite justified and competent to shut them up. One of the reasons given by Judge Williams is delicious. He says, in effect: 3850 ; Sydenham has a population of 10,000, the latter would require drink when the former would not.” But we shall give his own words as follows :

The question here, as there, is one of fact —viz., whether the committee in refusing Heffernan’s license on the ground that it was not required in the neighbourhood, have or have not really exercised the discretion with which the law has entrusted them. The burden of showing that a licensing committee have not the exercised their discretion, lies, in my opinion, strongly upon those who assert that they have not done so. In the Sydenham case that was shown clearly. Here it is, I think at any rate, open to a fair doubt. The circumstances of the Roslyn district are entirely different from those of Sydenham, The former is a large suburban district, with a somewhat scattered population of 3850 people ; the latter has a population of 10.000, the great bulk of whom are, to all intents and purposes, a town population and pretty closely concentrated. Looking at the habits and wants of men at the present day one can quite conceive it possible that apart altogether from any question of prohibition, a committee might fairly decide as to the three publichouses in the former district that it was not really required in the neighbourhood in which it was situated. In a populous town district, on the Other hand, the simultaneous closing of all the publichouses would of itself suggest that the committee had not really acted in accordance wijbh the law, Futhermore, the court has not before it in the present case any account of what took place on the applicat : o^ c! for ie other two licenses which were refus':*- the plaintiff wished the court to draw the J.”fcience that the refusals of all the licenses was m i "' nr;iuauce of a prearranged scheme, he should haveL brought the circumstances attending they refusal of each license before the court, in order to show there were some grounds for supposing that in each case the refusal was unreasonable. It is quite consistent with the evidenc before the court that the committee may have had before thorn excedingly good reasons for refusing the other two licenses. In the case of the plaintiff’s application the committee had before them a petition, framed in accordance with the statute, objecting to the license, which was duly signed by a large number of qualified persons. Now all we desire to say is that in thd Sydenham aid Rosy hi cases the circumstances were entirely similar in every detail, and if the Jaw has been administerd properly in one it has been administered improperly in the other. If the Court of Appeal is right, then Judge William? is wrong. We quite agree with Mr Isitt that the two decisions are inconsistent.] But what will Jiot lawyers do ? What/ twists and turns cannot they give things 1 What mystification are not they capable of 1 The two decisions, read .Ada by side, can only lead to the conclusion tJiat some one has blundered. The position is therefore very unsatisfactory, and the onus of defining the law is thrown upon the Legislature. The present Licensing Act is a sham. Only a week ago in the North Island a publican succeeded in escaping punishment for Sunday trading on the ground that his license was silent on the subject. Under this decision any publican can keep his house open on Sunday now. The same publican has been before the court oh times, and has on each occasion escaped punishment. Is it therefore to be wondered at that the police say it is no use for them to prosecute under the present Licensing Act as they cannot get a conviction ? The Act is broken everyday 1

in the year, and the publicans have not sense enough to see that they are cutting their own throats in this way. They are relying on the power of the purse and the patience of the British public, but they ought to know that just as constant dropping wears the stone, so will the constant breaking of the law eventually turn out to their disadvantage. This cannot go on. We must have an act under which breaches of it can be punished, and also the powers of the Licensing Committees must bo made plainer. The absurd position in which the two decisions above referred to leave the matter now, is too ridiculous to be tolerated much longer.