AN EKETAHUNA SETTLER.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10153, 24 December 1910, Page 5

AN EKETAHUNA SETTLER.

SEEKS A HOTEL LICENSE

MAGISTRATE REFUSES A CERTIFICATE.

An interesting action under the licensing law came before Mr .Justice Cooper in the Supreme (Ymrt at Wellington yesterday, the plaintiff being Frederick James Blight, and the defendant Andrew Duncan Thomson, stipendiary magistrate. Plain tiff sot out that he was a settler residing at Kketahnna, and married. Being desirous of obtaining a transfer of the license of the Telegraph Hotel at Olaki, he applied to Mr A. D: Thomson, S.M., for a certificate on the grounds that '(a) plaintiff 's Tvi'fe did trot intend to •go and reside with him at the hotel ;-'(b) that defendant bad made it a rule to refuse a certificate of.'fitness (except on exceptional circumstances) to married men whoso wives would not be resident at the Jiofe't. Plaintiff stated that otherwise the magistrate was satisfied as to his (plaintiff's) character, record, and financial position. Plaintiff claimed that the magistrate had exceeded his jurisdiction in refusing ■a 'certificate, and asked the court to issue a mandamus ordering defendant to issue the -necessary certificate.

In defence Mr Thomson said the license had previously been held by a single man, and the result was most •unsatisfactory from a moral point of view. He considered it essential for the protection of the female servants and in order that the house might be properly conducted, that the licensee's wife should reside with him on the premises. On the 25th November Mrs Bright-called on defendant and said that she would under no circumstances reside in the liotel in Otaki. Mr Young appeared for plaintiff, •and Mr Ostler for defendant. DEFINITION OF "FITNESS." In outlining the. main facts. Mr Young said petitioner was an elderly man. He had been a member of the Wairarapa Licensing Bench for about twenty-seven years. Mr Bright owned a farm at Eketahuna, and on going into a saw-milling venture at Masterton loft the management of the farm to his wife and son, and three years ago, not wishing to disturb his son, ■purchased the freehold of the hotel at Otaki. There was absolutely nothing against his character. Counsel contended that the magistrate had extended his jurisdiction, and had improperly exercised his jurisdiction. His Honor: You say whether a man is married or single, if he is of good character and fit to hold a license, he is entitled to a license? • Counsel: "Yes, I must go that length." He added that Mr Bright was sixty years of age, and that he was not legally separated from his wife. The statute set out the disqualifications imposed. His Honor : Yes; put it does not define "fitness." That is left entirely to the magistrate. ~ IS THE RULE ARBITRAR Y ? 1 Mr Young said that section 72 of the Act provided that licenses could be held by widows or by women who had obtained a prohibition order. There was no bar against men. One would imagine that a man who was separated from his wife was a more "fit" person to hold a license than n woman who was separated from her husband. He contended that the I magistrate, by his decision, had added ' two disqualifications to the statute: against single men and married men whose wives did not reside on the premises. Mr Bright proposed to> have a housekeeper to look after the interests of the female servants. Counsel submitted that this was a typical instance of where a magistrate had laid down an arbitrary rule. If Mr Thomson's objection was held to be. good, it meant that all unmarried men;-were debarred from holding a license.. . ■ '

BACHELORS AND LICENSES

Mr Ostler contended that it was the general practice throughout New Zea- : land on the part of magistrates to report that applicants for" licenses who were bachelors or separated from their husbands were not "fit" persons to hold a license. Counsel had made en-, quiries that morning, and ascertained that in no single case had a license been issued to bachelors. Mr Young's argument meant that no magistrate had power to say whether a man was "fit" or not to hold a liconse where his character was good. The Act, he emphasised, empowered magistrate's to consider an applicant's "character and suitability." His Honor: "A man may be of excellent character and yet utterly unsuitable to hold a license." His Honor added, that if one magistrate in his discretion refused a license ; to a single man and another magistrate, in another district granted a license in like circumstances, the court could not interfere—it was still an exercise of discretion. Counsel further contended that where a -magistrate infringed no principle of justice, there could be no interference with the wide discretion I given him under the statute. The rea- I son given by the magistrate for refusal of the license was not only not unreasonable, but it was good and valid, and in accordance with the spirit of the licensing law, which placed the most rigid restrictions on licenses for ! the sale of alcoholic liquors. Although Mr Bright was a man of excellent character, counsel contended that he was not a fit and proper person within the meaning of the Act to hold a license, and he submitted that the court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus. In reply, Mr Young said there was no authority for the statement of his friend that it was the practice to refuse licenses all over the colony to utimarried men, or men separated from their wives. That was the very difficulty ho was fighting. It had been as- '; sumed that such was the ease, but there was no warrant for the statement. His Honor said ho would not decide the matter without consideration, but he was not at all sure that it was a good thing to have all hotel licenses held by men confined to married men. Tn order that the interests of the public and the good conduct of the servants might be conserved, the Legislature had delegated to magistrate's the power to say what constituted "fitness." After further argument His Honor reserved his decision until January ' Ith.