THE THAMES LICENSING COMMITTEE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXV, Issue 208, 31 August 1894, Page 4

THE THAMES LICENSING COMMITTEE.

INTERESTS G LICENSING CASE.

In the Supreme Court to-day, argument was continued in Banco, in the case of Ehrenfried and another y. Kenny and others. This was motion for a writ of mandamus to compel the Thames Licensing Committee to grant a license to the .Empire Hotel. Mr F. E. Baume appeared in support of the motion, and Mr Theo. Cooper represented the Committee. The statement of the claim Bet forth that the Committee had refused the license of the hotel for, ib was contended, insufficient reasons. Mr Baume contended thab the Committee waa not justified in refusing the license to ■ the Hotel, when it was offered thab the matters complained of would be remedied, and as a matter of fact that had since been done. ~ . Hia Honor said tho question was, what materials were before the Committee when it arrived at tho decision, because the Committee was not bound by what had taken place outside. How was he to decide upon a poinb if three people said things were in a certain state, and three said they were not ? Mr Baume said in this case ten people made affidavits that the hotel was sufficiently furnished. Mr Cooper pointed out that there was no allegation of improper conduct of the hotel.

His Honor asked whether Mr Baume contended thab the Committee decided wrongly in law, or used their own discretion 1

Mr Baurne said hia. contention was that there was no evidence in law for the Committee to go on in the first place. • Hi 3 Honour : " That is a matter of discretion. Do you admit that the Committee •hoard and determined."'

Mr Baumo said he preferred not to admib anything at bhe present time. His Honor said there was an offer made that everything should be sot right to the satisfaction of. the Licensing Committee and Sergeant Gillies. The question was whether the Committee, having that offer before them, were bound in law to grant the license, or adjourn the hearing in order to have them effected.

Mr Cooper said the Committee simply would uot accept the offer made. It was the duty of the licensee to keep the hotel in proper repair. Mr Baume contended thab as tho notice simply complained of the bedrooms, it did not refer to all the rooroa in the hotel.

His Honor said if an hotel-keeper profesaed to keep room to accommodate the public, those rooms must be sufficiently furnished.

Mr Baume said the visitors had not complained about) the accommodation. The only persons who complained were the polio. The leak in the billiard-room had been repaired. He urged that a place should be habitually out of repair before a license was refused.

His Honor eaid of course the complaint was made by the Inspector, who was the proper authority. Mr Baumo aaid they had put spring matGresees down to please Sergeant Gillies, and then ho complained about the blankets.

His Honor said Ml- Baurao would have to show authority that ha should grant the mandamus if it were shown thab the Committee had acted partially or unjustly; M r Baume contended that the word " diacretion " did nob mean tliafc tha Committee could do as it liked. Tho members were to use their discretion judicially. He quoted authorities upon the matter, and urged that if there was a complaint, the onus of proof rested upon the objector. His Honor said he could nojt decide a point upon the weight of evidence chat he had hot heard. :' '].'"'

*•- Air"lJaunio-eaid-ifc wsw -not oofi-jsompla-ted-by the legislature that v license should be taken away from an hotol for a cause about which the hotolkeoper had not received notice.

Hia Honor said ho was not going to sib there to decide how many blankets there should be in an hotel. If the Committee decided there were nob suincient blankets ib was enough for him. Mr Baumo said His Honor could consider whether the objection was nob such a frivolous ono that it was nob a proper exercise of judicial discretion for the Licensing Committee to refuse the license upon Bucb an objection. His Honor said that the Inspector gave the facts upon which he based his complaint. Possibly the Committee would have acted more wisely if it; bad, gran tod tho adjournment. ' ;■ Mr Bauma quoted authorities tp show that there was power to grant a writ of mandamus in a case where the objection taken waa nob a legal one. He submitted that in the presont oaso the notice was nob sufficient. At Sergeant Gillies' suggestion fresh mattresses had been supplied, and then ho was asked to again inspect the house. No notice was given until the 3Jst day about the blankets, and ib was promised that they should be supplied. Still a majority of tho Committee refused to grant the license. Hia Honor said because the Committee refused an adjournment ib was now asked that the licenso should be granted. If bho mandamus were granted, ib would mean that the Committee muafc grant the license whether or not the blankets were supplied. A mandamus might be granted ordering the license to be issued, bub he was nob aware that a mandamus could order the Committee to rehear a case ib had already heard and decided. He had nob yeb heard Mr Cooper's argument, bub ib seemed to him that the minority of the Committeo were within their right in asking to have the casa adjourned, bub there, was the question as to whether bho majority, being wrong, wero only wrong in error of judgment or in law. Because he thought they had acted unwisely could ho order a re-hearing? He did not at tho moment think of any authority by'which ho could. Mr Cooper eaid there was nob a single case. Tho authorities were the other way. Mr Baume : Then there is the notice.

His Honor : At present I am of opinion that the notice was good. ." Out of repairs " i3 a vague term certainly, bub can you show that a more precise objection is required?" , The argument was still proceeding when we went to press.