LICENSING COMMITTEE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXIX, Issue 7819, 11 June 1909, Page 3

LICENSING COMMITTEE.

APPLICATIONS REFUSED. A meeting of the Ashburton Licensing Committee was held this morning, Mr V. G. Day, S.M., presiding. Other members of the committee present were Messrs F. H. Choat, B. It. Macdpnald, F. R. Flatman, junior, T. E. -Upton, and Dr C. L. Handcock. The "clerk read the following applications for licenses: Star of the South Hotel, Rangitata, accommodation license for Daniel Brick McSweeney; Rangitata Bridge Hotel, Arundel, accommodation license for William Newton Jones; Geraldine Hotel, Geraldine, publican's license, for John Mullan; Commercial Hotel, Geraldine, publican's license, for Joseph. George Gehrig; Crown Hotel, Geraldine, publican's license, . for Sarah Mulhern; Orari Hotel, Orari, publican's license for William Quirke. In reply to Mr Day, the clerk said that at the last licensing poll non-res-toration had been carried. Mr Raymond appeared on behalf of the applicants, and with him Mr J. Hanson. Mr A. S. Adams appeared to oppose the applications, but the Magistrate said that as there were no objections, Mr Adams had no claim to be heard. Mr Adams urged that he was within his rights, pointing out how necessary it was, seeing that the committee was subject to certain penal, clauses m the Act that it should have all the assistance m coming to a right decision, and he was there to give such assistance "as he could., m this direction, if the Bench' would, accept it. Mr Day said the committee was of the opinion that Mr Adams had no power to appear, seeing that no objection had been lodged. Mr Adams said he had not been treated m this way before. « Mr Day said that probably committees m other places might act differently. '■•■-'• Mr Adams said that that was quite evident. The Rev. George Henry Mann (Ger aldine) entered 'an objection on behalf of the residents. Mr Day,said the Bench was under the impFession that licenses could not be granted. Mr Raymond, who appeared for the applicants, said he wished to remove that impression, and the section of the Act relevant to the case before the Bench, and which he intended to quote were Section 8, 24, 25, 38 (fourth schedule), also 27 and 28, and m these would be found practically the whole of the legislation bearing *>n the subject Mr Raymond then proceeded to argue that the Bench would be quite within its rights m granting the applications. Two different issues had been placed before the electors of Ashburton at the last lcensing poll—that licenses be restored, and that licenses be not restored. At that poll .the issue that licenses be not restored was not carried, nor was the issue that licenses be restored. Sec. 24 said that the Returning Officer shall count the votes and determine.the result of the poll. Should he find that none of the proposals have been carried he shall notify the Licensing Committee and the same conditions as previously obtained shall continue. It was pointed out that if . restoration had 7 been carried Ashburton would be entitled to the same number of licenses as existed some six years ago before No-license was carried, which would menn thai none of the Goraldine licenses could bo granted. No proposal had been carried, anrl therefore ihe number of liomses should continue is at present. The case before the Bench was one not contemplated/ by the Legislature, but such cases sometimes; arose, H<» sabmifcted

that he had placed the case fairly before the committee and that the applicants were entitled to their licenses. An argument then took place between counsel and Mr Day as to the issue that had been carried at the last poll, the latter saying that non-restor-ation had been carried, and therefore he was of the opinion that no licenses could be granted. Mr Raymond said his clients were entitled to the benefit of the "notfinding" of the electors. The committee retired to consider their decision and resumed m about half an hour. Mr Day said that, while sympathising with the licenses who had lost their licenses at Geraldine, the committee was convinced that under Section 8 mid 38 of the Licensing Act, read together, they had no power to g^mti the applications, which were, therefore, refused by the committee.