POLICE COURT.-Yesterday.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VII, Issue 1883, 5 August 1874, Page 3

POLICE COURT.-Yesterday.

(Before VI. Fraser, Esq,, 8.M.) Is a Puulican's Licen-e as Asset? —I he adjourned application for the transfer of the license of the Court-house Hotel from Samuel Young; to Kenneth Brown was called.—Mr Tyler appeared for the application', and Mr Macdonald to oppose on behalf of the Trustee in Bankruptcy, who claimed the license as an asset of Mr Young, a bankrupt. -Mr fyler said that he purposed to show to the Court that the license for the transfer of which he applied was not an asset which could pass to the trustee for the reason that it could not be vested in him. What was vested in the trustee was the property and effect* of the bankrupt, but a license was not property, it was personal to the individual. This was only n license to a proper person to sell liquors for a certain length of time. It was entirely personal to uimsplf. The signatures, &c, which had to b« procured to show that the person applying for the license was a proper person to hold such license and to keep a public-awe, was a matter entirely personal to the individual. If this was held to be an asset, then a license to kill gave might for the same reason be considered an asset.—His Worship: Alicense to kill game is not transferable.—Mr I'yler said that a publican's license was only transferable tinder certain circumst'inces, not as a matter of course. It was referred to the police as to whether the person to whom the license was to be transferred was a proper person, and if he were not the transfer would not have been granted, lie could not therefore see liow the license could be considered a property. In this case the applicant was a tenant in the premises owned by Ryan, Bell, and Co, These had let to Mr i'ouug, but in consequence of the rent not being paid Kyan, Sell, and Co. entered into possession, and agreed to let them to Kenneth Brown. This was before Mr Young was adjudicated a bankrupt, bur, he allowed that the Bankruptcy Act referred back to the tim-i at which the schedule was filed. So far as the equi'ies, it was said that Mr Xoiiug purchased this license before his license. That was not true. The whole of the money, £4'), had been paid by Ryan, Bill, and Cj., and Young afterwards paid them back £25, leaving £15 still duo. The license was worthless to the trustee, inasmuch as he had not the premises, and the license could be of no use except to his client. - His Worship said, what he (Mr Tyler) had to speak to was the value of the license in a monetary point of view. The duty on the license was the asset, not the license itself. If a consideration was got for it, it belonged to the trustee. The license, with eleven months to run, was surely worth something, and they could not expect to get it for nothing. If the piece of paper was the license it was an eff-ct and belonged to the trustee. It was singular that this (the Court House Hotel) was the only house in which the same questim had ever before cropped up. The Court would have no business to inquire into this, but the Trustee in Bankruptcy, who raised the objection, was in Young's place, and therefore the question must be inquired into. He would give an analogous case. A nun got a patent in several countries for the manufacture of ice. That was surely a personal matter, the result of his own invention, but it becam« an asset as soon as the man became bankrupt. -Mr Tyler said that suppose the document (the license) was destroyed the person licensed could still cirry on business, and the transfer of that authority to carry on business was what they now asked for to a person to whom the police had no objec tion. Surely in a proceeding like this it was not for the Court to inquire what became of the m >ney pail for tint license.—His Worship said that und-r the Licensing Act there was n-> power to transfer a license, but there was under the Provincial Act, which allowed : the license to go to his executors, ke., and anything which could go to his executors should go to the assignee. That, he believed, was an axiom of law.—Mr fyler said that in the case of a freeman of the City of London his freedom could not be called au asset. -His Worship said the cases were not analogous, the freedom was not transferable.—Mr Tyler said that he had searched numerous authorities, but could find, no case in whieh a publican's license passed to the assignee. It was not a cbattr], In Otago for a long time it was held not to be an asset, but the Provincial Ordinance made a special clause to mike it so - lis Worship said it was evident the provincial statute never contemplated such a thing as a bankrupt publican. They never thought Good Templarism would become so rampant.—Mr Tyler submitted that the application having been properly made to his Worship, ought to be granted.—His Worship said it was one of those things which could have beeu settled much better outside the Court. — Mr Tyler said that the application was made by the grantee, and the only question then was had the Court jurisdiction. The Court had jurisdiction, and then the Trustae in Bankruptcy stepped in to oppose. There was nothing to enable the Court to enter into consideration of these matters. The asignee could not make the application, nor could the transfer be granted to him.—Mr Maedonald rose and was proceeding to reply to Mr Tyler's arguments when his Worship asked him what he was there for, and what he had to do with the application.—Mr Macdonald said that the estate was vested in the Trustee in Bankruptcy, for whom he appeared. If the i'ourt ruled that he had no right to appear he would desist, but he would remind the Court that it should not assist the bankrupt in a step which would help to defraud his creditors. There was another reason why he should appear. That paper (the license) was undoubtedly the property of the trustee, and he preferred having it in its present state to having any alterations made on it. He could take that stand.—Mr! Tyler said that was if Mr Macdonald had any right to appear at all. This was a matter' between x and B. C could have nofcbiug to do with it.—Mr Macdonald said that the Court was asked to take an active part in a matter which was the property of his client.—His Worship to Mr Tyler: The question is, is that your paper, to give it to me to endorse it, or is it not P— vlr Tyler said he produced it. It was not for the Court to inquire how he became possessed of it.—His Worship said that he was supposed to be there to do justice to all, and under the present circumstances at this stage he considered he would be doing an injustice to the trustee if he granted the application. He would grant them an adj >urn- [ ment to allow thorn to settle the matter

amongst themselves or come to some amicable arrangement.—Mr Tyler asked who was to carry on the business in the meantime.—His Worship said that for the time of the adjournment the police would not take any steps.—Mr Bullen said that the police would bring no case, but in the meantime they would hold Mr Young responsible for the house.—The Court then adjourned the application for 14 days. .