TE AWAMUTU.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 2794, 10 June 1890, Page 2

TE AWAMUTU.

Mr Gresham, after adducing the ordinary proof that the necessary statutory require ment had been complied with as to notices, certificate of householder's advertisements, etc., stated that with the permission of the Bench he would endeavour to satisfy them that the application was a " new application "in respect of an old house " and that although the license of the Commercial Hotel had been allowed to lapse twelve months ago through nonpayment of the license money still as both houses had been granted their certificates last June, and no local option vote had been since recorded, the committee had full power to grant a certificate to each of the above named houses if they thought fit so to do. He was not aware that any precisely similar case had been decided in this colony, but he relied upon the following cases as supporting his contention, viz : The New South Wales case of Eckmann v. Mackay, N.S.W., L. R., 3, 335 ; the Victorian cases, Regina v. Hamilton and other-, ex parte the Attorney-Genera', V.L. reports, 7, 194 ; and Osbaldiston v. Licensing Justices of Wangaratta, V.L. Reports, 9, 9; and the English case of Regina v. Market Bosworth Justices (of date 1887), s(i, L.J.M., C., 90. All these cases coupled with the interpretation in the New Zealand Licensing Act of 1881 of the term new publican's license, with sub-sections 11. and V. of section 44, proved conclusively that this was " a new application for an old house " ; and that the local option vote taken in 1888 limited the number of public houses in the -district to the nu nber existing at the time that vote was taken. He was aware that there was a hostile petition signed by 43 residents, including Mr Lewis, the hotel keeper, but inasmuch as the requirements of section 58 had not been complied with, it would be of no avail, as the cominitteo were expressly directed by the last portion of that section to erase every one of those forty-three names.

Mr Dyer, who appeared for Mr Lewis, contended that the Committee had no power to grant the certificate to Mr Gleesan, aud that they were prohibited from doing so by section 45. He relied upon the case of in re Mary Patterson, v, the Moeraki Licensing Committee, N.Z. L. Reports, 1890, Vol. "VIII., i). 1. Section 45 provided that no new publican's license could be granted until a local option vote had been taken in favour of an increase in the number of licenses. The interpretation clause included in the definition of a new publican's license," a license granted in respect of premises in respect, whereof a similar license has at any time previously been removed, taken away, or abolished. In the case quoted Mr Justice Williams held that a license granted in respect of premises which had been previously licensed, and the renewal refused, as the house was improperly conducted, was "a new publicau's license," within the meaning of the Act. All the cases quoted by Mr Gresham lwd been cited in the argument before Mr Justice Williams, and he had in giving judgment stated that the Australian cases cited were of practically no value in this colony, as the Licensing statutes differed comiderably. In the present instance Mr Dyer sontended the license had been taken away or abolished, as the license fee had not been paid, and that the application was, therefore for a new license. The committee retired to consider these law points, and on returning into Court announced that their decision was that the Commercial Hotel was an " old house," and not an increase according to the last local option vote. At_ the request of Mr Dyer a minute of this decision was signed by Mr Walton as chairman. Mr Gresham then proceeded to call evidence as to the necessity for the granting of the license of the Commercial Hotel. Both Mr Lyon and Mr K. Brown deposed that in their opinion a necessity existed for a second house. Mr Dyer called Messrs Carley, Norton, Patterson and Potter, none of these witnesses had a word to say against Mr Lewis or the way he conducted his business, but in reply to Mr Greshaui, Mr Carley, Mr Norton, and Mr I'ottur gave as their opinion that a second hotel iu Te Awamutu was very desirable. It was also elicited by Mr Gresham from Mr Carlev that he (Carley) had beeu employed by Mr Lewis to act as collector of the signatures of the hostile petition, and that he expected to receive payment from Mr Lewis for his work. Mr Dyer addressed the committee at great length, contending that a second hotel was not required in the district, and they again retired to consider their decision. Finally the Chairman announced that the committee had decided that the certificate for a license to the Commercial Hotel would be granted, the proposed alterations and improvements as shown on the plan of the premises to be effected within two months. The hearing of this ease lasted from 12 till half past 4 o'olock. The renewal to Mr Henry Lewis was also granted for the To Awamutu Hotel.