THE JUBILLE HOTEL.

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 203, 31 August 1887, Page 5

THE JUBILLE HOTEL.

tinn for Writ of Ccr-

, r vexed question of the license granted T" JUI Jubilee Hotel at New--11,3 mnrt in Banco again to-day. «onwasonebyMrC.E.But. TbeaPC^f of Her Majesty's Solicitor--ton, on belwi to c , rliorar i Dr. LaishneraU^t oppie the application. WBSSSSS bis application, and Mr Uuttonni as before filed an affi . Hi3t „encl W. his _ atter was endavit, conte ndrng na q{ fche Licensill(? tirely^ithmthecli. ere Commrssroner* therefore review it. Hbfloi^vonr to show by authoriti« tnat \ the c i a „ses of the affidavit, Mr Button that the sum t^«KTB*« expended in the before the H * «f« as he could see, was whether Court, »o I-" ~. t0 g ran t a license X So proceeded to state his reason. M Slntion that the Committee did *£sKßJpower- According to the 'l o,l^ license gave a publican the right A°' ii»V once in the premises therein to sel l a, °in the 38th section it was that no license could be granted P^remleV that had not a public tot2e P a given number of dwelling Mother rooms, conveniences, &c, ftp. As a matter of fact, no house was in iL eDHonor read other portions of the elaule, and said it obvwusly referred to a Jm His learned friend would quote hnritics to show that the Committee Seudges, and that their judgment Sew erroneous, was conclusive^ Tl is S the strongest part of his friend's

"hh Honor failed to see that the presence 0 f a license was proof of the existence or tt_Ston said there were some strong authorities, nevertheless, and his friend would rely upon them. His Honor read the clause requiring notice of application to be displayed on the Button quoted from the allegations of his learned friend's affidavit to show that the notice of intention to apply for a license was affixed on the site of the proposed hotel, where the foundations were being put in. His Honor: That is not in accordance with the section. Jlr Button, proceedmg with his contention that the house must have been in existence, quoted from the 69th section to show that the Court must issue their certificate at once, and within fourteen days subsequently the money paid and the license issued. Otherwise, the license was void. What actually happened in regard to tire holding over of the license was ille»al. It was "also provided that the licensee must have his name painted over the door, and a lamp must be hung over the" door, and yet the license was dated back three months before the house was built, , Mr Button was proceeding with other arnilar objections, when His Honor said he did not think these objections would effect the question. They would be met by the allegation that the license was not really in existence, and was one that was to be held over till the house lis built. The question to decide was

Tkther the Committee had power to grant ifase fqr a.hquse that did not exist.

„r Bntfcon said he would not quote any iarther authorities.

...Dr.JUrishley proceeded to argue that the writ-should not issue. The grounds he tsoK were that the Committee had •the power to grant the license, and that the Court could not review their action. iHeheld that there was no necessity fo.- the Committee to take evidence on oath, the Act giving them power to act on their own personal local knowledge. They did not take sworn evidence. He also submitted that this was not a civil proceeding, and that there could not be such a thing as certiorari^ The Act of 1881 invested a large discretionary power in the hands of the Committee, and the case of Hamilton v. laser showed that their decisions were not to be interfered with by the Court. His Honor did not think that was the point. The Act gave large discretionary power relative to the licensing of houses already in existence, but not respecting houses only projected. He thought it desirable that they should have some such power, because a man naturally would fixe to know before he spent so much money what prospect he had of getting a license for it.

Dr. Laisbley held that the clause of the Act might fairly be construed to mean that tieproduction of plans was sufficient. His Honor read a portion of the section Wnch referred to the production of plans, •^ P], ans should show that" the building wntted, & c . The obvious intention of the was that the building of which plans vere produced should be in existence. nr. Laishley gave it as his opinion that be intention was that the clause in queslo should deal with houses in existence, El? i al, SSn Carry out the "Pirit of the ■7 Z Uthes 4 Act' aud subsection ■iflPr M was s° w°rded as to admit mure interpretation that a man is to know SLTT nCes the construction of a .Jo» whether he is to obtain a license for

prSn w t?, ltt6d thafc such an in*erSon h,:? hi be Placed on the clause in KSlv ,fcf th°n, the s«bscetion came in ex££ lyrefe^d to a house already in

pWedit tI yiSaid.if the SKSfe? y his learaed fiie»d Kehadse ;;t dn°tthink thi*»t all likely, followed a tremendous fight had $'<£S3T t d an aufchority show Woe done St "0t lssue if AwS[ b C p °? d n.°- b "cc that any inWedi 0 i? ncrerf ,_ man acted with a Dr. £__£ Avhal^ould follow. *he Co^ ff hl 7, °uld not ut'go that * Sr^ ft ¥ the towe was held thafc if Hi* Honor JTPetentSS R sfc h™ it would be the C^rt on a i thero t0 come before •PPlyfora maa^? Seqilent occasion and de°ntlielicense tt^C\S2 ht the Section-that Etroo *one S° ton oatll «'as a monProceeding with Hs ? 6 *»**- 2 t f n lnterr«Ptcd with ."^eeaa,. y . taat f^ther argument was S on 3 SffttS >*there ™ two ?f he. r *« cSnndrii 0"^ &st was _^»BaliS2lf tCO I had acted legally of 1" a house that ™ i?**^ooh it ceond ' T hether a «? a ffi a Cr aSe- In *_* qmte clear « . Ll'- Laishley, ?;CS.f? any house to eiSltr^c4 ght b T e,f^'ted must >%!> Ashley tW ly Clause mWSi conteS , Reared to HctS?" of clauseV aS «>e seventh u»dt£»S and in thatsubwS_£ t°thep; r w t °S w^ °f win CS^Por^ s °V* c. \«Ming set

So far, he thought the Committee had exceeded their jurisdiction in granting a license to a house not in existence. There was one peculiar circumstance in connection with the matter that he would mention. _ According to Mr Protheroe's affidavit, it appeared that the foundations of the building were down when the application for the license was made. Now, it was stated that one of the Licensing Committee that granted the application was actually the contractor for the work of building. He need not descant on the impropriety of such a proceeding. With regard to the question whether the writ was one that ought to go when the evidence was not taken on oath, he thought that if the Committee issued a license without regard to the law, that fact would not debar the Court from reviewing their action and issuing a writ. The writ of certiorari would therefore issue.