LICENSING QUESTIONS.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4813, 31 August 1894, Page 3

LICENSING QUESTIONS.

Important Decisions.

(By Tologmph.—Press Association)

Auckland, Thursday.

An important case under the Licensing Act came up before His Honor Mr Justice Conolly at the Supremo Court in banco this morning, in an appeal enso, Charles E. Brewer, hotclkeepoi', of Elthaui, Tarawiki, was appellant, and PoliceSergeant Stagpole the respondent, Mr Thco. Cooper appeared for tho appellant, and Mr Tole for tho respondent. The appellant was licensee of the Branch Hotel at Blthnm, and tho appeal was against tho decision of District Judge Kettle, who fined Brewer L 5 15s for Sunday trading. The facts woro as follows: five persons were in the hotel ■on Sunday; May 27th, three being lodgers and the other two residents of the town. The live went into the bar parlour and had a "shilling in "and tho' winner "lo sliouf." One of the lodgers won the " pool" and paid for the drinks, which were duly consinned by the whole five. On this evidence the Magistrate imposed a fine, Mr Cooper contended the drinks were sold to tho lodgor and not to the other members of tho party, lie-bought the drinks, the pool having become his property, and the bolel-kecper did not, as a matter of fad, sell any drink to (he other four. His Honor upheld the contention and allowed the appeal. The sale of drinks, His Honor said, was a sale to the lodger alone, and not lo

the two residents, and it was not necessary to determine whether they were guests in (lie technical sense of lliu term. CiiiiisrciU'iieii, Thursday.

At the Supreme Court to-day Uiclmrd John Wbittel, of Waiaii, hulclkccpci', sought an order prohibiting the Ashley Licensing Committee from enforcing the condition to the l'cnewel of the license of the Waiau Hotel, compelling plaintiff to transfer the license to sonio other person within three months. The plaintiff, in his affidavit, said he had had no notice of any objection to his applicalion.andhadbeenaffordcd no opportunity of reply, His Honor said section '79 of the Act, of 1881 enabled the Licensing Committee to vary the conditions under which accommodation licenses might be granted. Ho thought the clause could not on any reasonable construction he read as authorising the Committee to inflict a penalty j on (be licensee, or impose conditions inconsistent with the general provisions of the Act. In tho present case the Committee, without any notice to the applicant and without giving him an adjournment or an opportunity to reply, had imposed the condition complained of to the renewal of the license. It might bo said that the plaintiff had obtained advantage by having escaped the charge ot misconduct and the possible refusal of his license, but he was not responsible for that. The Committee had given a decision which by the Act was final without having heard him, He was entitled to a hearing, and it was no answer to say that the Committee without a hearing had indicted a mitigated penally. An order prohibiting the Committee from enforcing tho condition was granted, Costs were not allowed,