A WHOLESALE LICENSE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10258, 9 June 1911, Page 4

A WHOLESALE LICENSE.

POLICE OBJECTION

OVER-RULED BY THE, BENCH.

At the quarterly meeting of the Wairarapa Licensing Bench in Carterton yesterday, the police objected to the granting of a wholesale license to the Wairarapa Farmers' Co-opera-tive Association for premises at Greytown, on the ground that the holders of the license had been twice convicted under the Licensing Act. Sergeant Miller stated that the ! Greytown business was a branch of I that at Masterton, and there had been J continued irregularities. ( Mr H. C. L« Robinsonj who appeared j for the applicants, stated that he could j not understand the grounds for ob- [ jectioh. He had never heard of, such j objections before, and he would, like I to know what authority there was in j law for lodging them. I Sergeant Miller stated that the grounds for objection to. a wholesale license were different to those in connection with a pnolican's license. There was provision in section 108 af the Act for lodging objections to the Bench: The holder of the license in the case had been twice convicted. Mr Robinson stated that this was not a fact. He maintained that the police had no legal standing. Mr Reia, S.M., Chairman of the Bench, said the Bench did not think there were sufficient grounds in the objection raised for withholding the license. Sergeant Miller stated that other irregularities had been committed, of which he was prepared to give evidence. ■ Mr Reid said no notice had been given of other irregularities, and* the Bench could not deal with them. Sergeant Miller; The holders of the license have not been complying with the law. ;>. Mr Reid said he had entered a conviction in one case, which was only of a technical character. A man had ordered a case of whisky, and he was too ill to take delivery of it. The whisky had been stored in Masterton for a day and had then been sent back to Greytown. Subsequently it had been delivered to the man's wife. A technical offence had been committed in storing the liquor in Masterton, and a conviction had been entered. This was not the class of conviction that warranted the Bench in withholdI ing a license. It was only a technical breach.

Sergeant Miller stated that the liquor had not been ordered from Greytown by the woman the second time. Mr Reid: Ido not wish the police or anybody else to traverse my remarks. I have dealt with the case on its 'merits.' , '' - "'■" : .". Mr H. 0. L. Robinson stated that the case was vexations, if not malicious. The applicant had been put to considerable expense in calling witnesses. The license had been in existence for over forty years, and not a single impropriety had been committed. The quality of the liquor sold had always been of the best. Assuming 'that prohibition were carried, the wholesale license would be the last to go. He felt that he should ask for costs in this case against the police. They had been allowed by Justice Edward in a case of Miller v. Smith. '

j Inspector Ellison objected to this matter being introduced. The Bench said Mr Robinson had a right to be heard. Proceeding, Mr Robinson said he was entitled to ask for costs in a vexatious case. Assuming that the police had acted reaonably in bringing the original prosecution, they should have been satisfied when they got. a ruling of-the Court. To bring the present proceedings was to make their actions vexatious. The W.F.C.A. had been properly observing the law in the face of difficult and complicated provisions. They had a right to ask for the protection of the Benchj He asked the Bench to mark its disapproval of the action of the police by awarding costs against them. Inspector Ellison objected to costs being allowed. There was no means of ascerting the law but by bringing prosecutions. The Licensing Bench had a right to know \vbat was going on, and it could only gain that knowledge by l the entering of an objection ,by the police. Mr Reid said the police had every right to object, as it had done. The objection could not be construed as either vexatious or malicious. The Bench looked to the police to keep 't informed in such matters. It could not agree with' Mr Robinson that it vas a case in which costs should be allowed. The Bench thought that the publication given to the matter was sufficient, and there was no good reason 1 for withholding the license, which would be granted. At the same time the Bench did not wish it thought that the police had acted wrongly in the matter. Mr M. Caselberg, Managing Director of the W.F.C.A., stated that his firm was desirous of observing the law in its integrity. They only wished to know what the law really was Every effort would be made in future to obey it.