LICENSING CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 204, 28 August 1911, Page 4

LICENSING CASE.

THE MABOPIU HOTEL. COMMITTEE'S DECISION QUASHED, His Honor Mr. Justice Edwards d* livered judgment at the Supreme Court this morning in the ewe Stanley Moore v. Maurice Harding and others, motion for writ of certiorari* and mandamus. The plaintiff is a publican carrying os business at the Maropiu Hotel, Kaipari Licensing District, and the defendants, members of the Kaipara Licensing Cora" mittee. On June 6 four members, including Jas. Trounsen, sat at the quarterly meeting of the Kaipara Licensing Court, and on June 27, three member* being then present, the application of plaintiff for renewal of his license was refused*. It was claimed for the appellant that Trounsen had ceased to be » member of the Committee by not residing nermanently in the Kaipara district and also that there was no quorum'present on the second occasion. For the defence it was denied that Trounsen had forfeited his seat, and that on Jnne 27 the decision of the Court, arrived at on June G, was given. His Honor's judgment was of great length. In regard ta the first point, he held that Mr Trouasen permanently resides at Xorthcote with his wife, although he pays frequent visit! to Maropiu, and there reside* in 0* house, which is the permanent residents of his daughter. It was not necessary only to determine that Mr. Trounaen resided at NorChcote. It was quit* possible that a man might have two permanent residences in different parts el the country. If this was th 3 case, each, residence might be permanent, but- residence in either could not be permanent Mr. Reed contended that the reading of the Act should be -pennafentlv ceases to reside," but his Honor was of opinion that Mr. Trounsen was not qualified to act in the Kaipara Licensing District. In regard to the second print, after going extensively into the position, his Honor was of opinion that t.tere could be no doubt that the applicant was entitled to have the adjudication formally announced in the presence of those adjudicating, and. therefore it was impossible that the adjudication could stand. His Honor did not think it necessary to consider the questior of the issuing of » writ of mandamus. He had held that Mr. Trounsen wis not qualified to sit on the Kaipars Licensing Cornmittea> and be probably would now resign, and permit of another member being appointed. If not, the necessary steps could be taken. Memwhile the plaintiff would be put to no dsadvantage. as section 118 of the Licenang Act was to the effect that the license was deemed to he extended until the application w-s flnslly disposed of. The decision of,the Committee was accordingly quashed. £2l costs were allowed. Mr. R. for the appellant, and Mr. J. H.£oect iex r"«poi dents.