DISTILLERY LICENSE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 94, 22 April 1931, Page 8

DISTILLERY LICENSE.

CHALLENGE TO MINISTER. APPLICANT SAYS «JLEGAL DUTY "IS CLEAR. NO EFFECT ON REVENUE. Can the Minister of Customs be compelled to issue a license for a distillery to be established in New Zealand? This question was argued in the Auckland Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Blair. A Kaihere settler, George Smerle (Mr. Gould), sought a mandamus to compel the Minister to grant him a distillation license for a plant which he proposed to establish at Mahia, about 10 miles south of Auckland. Mr. Meredith and Mr. McCarthy, on behalf of the Minister, opposed the application. In support of the application it was stated that New Zealand had an extensive internal lawful trade in alcohol for industrial, scientific and medicinal purposes, and it was supplied by imports valued at £20,000 of spirits annually. The importations for beverage use amounted annually to £600,000 in value. A license had been sought by the applicant and lie bad undertaken to comply with all reasonable requirements as to site and building, but he had beeii informed that the Minister had refused a license on the ground that it would be "opposed to public policy." Unless there was some lawful ground for refusal, contended Mr. Gould for the applicant, he was entitled to have his application granted. High'y Specialised Plant. Counsel *••'! I'uit it was necessary to erect biiilul.t: •• ami comply with the requirements of the Distillation Act in various other respects before he was entitled to a license, but as specialised building* and :i Hghly specialised plant wove required, he wished to have some assurance before be launched his contract. That bad been the trouble in a previous case, said bis Honor. The applicants had asked whether they would be granted a license when they provided ! the building. It was decided beforehand j that the Minister had no discretion to! grant or withhold a license, provided ! the requirement* of the Act were : satisfied. j Mr. Gould submitted that the Minis-' ter should grant a license as soon an! the preliminary conditions had LejJi : complied with, and that he had power! to allow more modern plant than that' set out- in the Act. I His Honor said a license would be losi ' if the output of a distillery pl.u.t were 1 loss than .3000 gallons a year. j Minister Must be "Reasonable."' { "You have to put up a big building,'.' j said Mr. Gould. He contended that,! under the Distillation Act, the Minister! must either approve of the site and 1 plans, or indicate in what respects ho j was not satisfied. He must exercise his! discretion in a reasonable manner. A j ' person was entitled to a writ of manda-1 nius where a statute imposed a legal duty on an official, even a servant cfl the Crown. He bad merely to show! that there was a legal duty and a refusal j to perform it. The Minister, lie said, had gone beyond his jurisdiction. "A man could go to Australia, establish a distilling plane there, and bring the product into New Zealand, - ' said 1 counsel. He added that the primary' producers of the Dominion would, in that case, lose the production of the raw; material, and there wguld also be the | toss of opportunities of employment, j The Act fixed the duty on locally-1 manufactured spirits. at the same rate; for a gallon as that paid on imported j spirits. .So there would be no loss of! public revenue. j Application " Premature "? j

Mr Meredith contended that the appiij cation was premature. He said that ti>e : Act required that the distillery should be erected before the question of'granting a license could be considered, and that [ there was no legal duty imposed on the Minister to do anything before that thuo The lodging of the application was only part of the procedure to be gone through before it could be considered. " In a distillery the temptations to and opportunities of fraud are great," he continued. "Therefore, the regulations io,v supervision are exceedingly strict. That is much more necessary 'iu distilleries than in breweries, because whisky has a piuch greater value per gallon."' In further argument, Mr. Meredith said the Minister had not an unfettered discretion to grant or refuse a license. He submitted that there could be no mandamus in respect of the grounds on ! which the applicant relied. Mr. Gould, in his reply, said the build-1 ing proposed would cost about £50,000. | Various certificates, about eight in all, | would be required from tlie chief inspec-1 tor of distilleries. A provisional permit j or authority appeared to be required: before the work could he commenced.) The requirement of separate certificates 1 was consistent with the sanction of the j work at progressive stages. It was! essential for the purposes of the \ct that, in the first instance, the sit- should be approved. (Proceeding.)