THE LICENSING QUESTION.

Auckland Star, Volume XII, Issue 3392, 14 June 1881, Page 2

THE LICENSING QUESTION.

(To tho Editor.)

Sir,—ln your leading article on Saturday you make tho following remarkable assertions regar Jing tha Licensing Law:—" We believe that Mr Ehrenfried is right ia contending that the Licensing; Law, as it stands, implies a i assurance of renewal of license during good behaviour. We do not think the mere opinion of the Bench that there are too many houseß for the population a sufficient reason for cancelling an existing license, thougti it is a perfectly valid one for refusing a new license. The Bench ig, no doubt, in duty bound to compelall licensed houses to comply with the law ia respect ot accommodation and orderliness, but having done that it must leave competition t3 determine which houses shall survive and which succumb in a district where too many have found a footing." If you will permit me I will shew that you take an incorrect view of the matter. Mr Ehrenfried, at the Licensed Victuallers' meeting, referred in bitter terms to the Thames Licensing Court's action in closing some ot the publio houses at the Thames, because they considered there were more there than the want. of the poDiilation required. During the lust session of Parliament Mr Ehrenfried petitioned the Houbo of tiepresentatives on the subjeoe, went down to Wellington himself, took a formidable array of witnesses to support his cause (though somo ot them irreparably damaged HI, and worked his hardest toconviuce tho Committee that ho had suffered loss and injustice withthisresult. The Committee rooortas follows: "The Court appeara to have acted under the authority of the 22ud section of ' The Licensing Act.1873,,'" which is ai fallows:—" The Licensing Court Bhall exercise its discretion in grauting or refusing any certificate for any description of licence, and shall not be obliged to grant the same merely because the requirements of the law as to accommodation or peraonal fitness of the applicant are fulfilled, unless iv its opinion there is a necessity for ihe publichouse or other establishment for the Bale of Bpirituoua liquora for which application is made." The question arises whether the Court was justified by this provision in refusing to issue renewal certificates on the ground that the puolic convenience did not require bo many publtobouses in the district. On the matter being referred to the Law o_B.C3rs ot the Crown, the Committee were advised " tbat tha 22nd section of ' The Licensing Act, 1873,' is very specific in granting a discretionary power of granting or refusing any oertificate for any description of license, and, in fact, requires the Court to be of opinion that there i 3 ii necessity for the publichouse for which application is made." '.ihe Court is therefore constituted the sole judge ai to whether a publichouse is require!, and is also, as a matter of duty, directed to satisfy itself of its necessity before is rain* a certificate ;and, as it appears the Commissioners acted in good faith and in the public interests in refusing to issue certiilcat... the Committee' cannot recommend the House to override the decision of the Licensing Court in tho case of these petitions. 29th July, 18"0." There are other portions of you, article I should like to comment on, out I exceedingly rejrot that I have not spare time.—l am &c, .. Waymouxh.

Ifitb June, 188 L