OHINEMURI LICENSES.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 143, 18 June 1926, Page 9

OHINEMURI LICENSES.

COMMITTEE GRANTS TEN.

THREE APPLICATIONS FAIL.

TWO CASES ADJOURNED.

(By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.)

PAEROA, this day.

The adjourned sitting of the Qhineoiuri Licensing Committee was held at the Courthouse, Paeroa, this morning, the chairman, Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., presiding.

The first business taken was the hearing of the adjourned application by R. E. Bradley (executor in the estate of M. A. and E. F. Moriarity), for the Railway Hotel, Paeroa, which made the fifth application for a license at Paeroa. Mr. McLiver appeared for the applicant, and urged the importance of the site from the public stanupoint. He claimed legal Preferential rights on behalf of the estate, which had also suffered heavily financially. The committee then adjourned, and, upon resuming, the chairman indicated that the undermentioned applicants had been approved of by the committee, together with their respective plans of licensed premises, and that, when the buildings were completed and the various requisitions complied with, licenses would be issued. Successful Applications. Waihi.—John B. Weedon, Rob Roy Family and Commercial Hotel; John Kelly, Waihi Commercial Hotel; Arthur Kerr, Golden Cross Hotel; and Medora Stevens, Sterling Hotel. Paeroa.—Catherine Vincent Crossby, Royal Mail Hotel; Lewis E. Cassels, Criterion Hotel; Ernest P. Fathers, Commercial Hotel; and E. W. Gibson' Smith, Paeroa Hotel. Waikino.—Win. J. Sellwood, Waikino Hotel. Kerepeehi.—las Mollov, Kereneehi Hotel. ' ' '

Applications were refused as R. Bradley (executor in the estate of M. and E. b\ Moriarity), for the Railway Hotel, Paeroa; Mary B. Montgomery, for the Waitoa Hotel, Waitoa.

The application by Gustave S. Rossi for the Karangahake Hotel, Karangahake, was withdrawn, applicant not having been granted a certilicate of fitness.

In regard to the applications by Mrs. Crosby (Paeroa) and Mrs. Stevens (Waihi), there being no buildings on their respective sites, both having been destroyed by fire, such applications will be adjourned pending the Erection of premises.

' The position summed up means that 31) licenses will be granted in Ohinemuri i.. t of 13 applications, all told, as fol--1 ... :— Waihi, 4; Paeroa, 4; Waikino, 1, and Kerepeehi, 1. Two are refused and one is withdrawn.

Xo-lieensc in Ohinemuri was carried on November 17, 1908, but did not come into force until July 1, 1901). On a population basis, the present committee had power to grant up to 15 licenses, but not less than seven.

When no-license was carried, there were 10 licenses in existence, four at Waihi, four at Paeroa, two at Waitekauri, two at Karangahake, and one each at Golden Cross, Waikino, Mackaytown and AVairongomai. The Committee's Powers. In giving the committee's decision in connection with the Waitoa application, the chairman said that the majority of the committee held that, notwithstanding the restriction of their powers and discretion by the removal of section 103, of the principal Act, they have an inherent power and discretioi to refuse to grant any particular application for a license. ' They deny that any applicant, even a preferential applicant, has the right to say where his or her particular licensed premises "are to be situated in dcliance of the committee. The* majority point out that to hold that an applicant had that right would be* to nullify the functions of a licensing committee. The majority desire to make it clear that their refusal is not based upon any consideration as to' the non-necessity for licensed premises in that particular neighbourhood, but upon their inherent power to say what licenses shall or shall not be granted in the district. "It has been urged by counsel for applicants," continued the chairman, "that the refusal of this application by the committee would condemn this particular township or portiqii of the district to continue under no-license, and that the committee has no right to do so in view of the result of the poll The answer of the majority is that this township never did have a license, even prior to 1008.

"While the refusal of any licencing committee to grant a particular license may Very often have the effect, incidentally, of condemning a township or portion of a district to continue without a licensed public house, it is clear, we think, that the committee is vested with some discretion, notwithstanding the restriction of that discretion by removal of section 103 of the principal Act. A difference of opinion -.rises as to the degree of discretion remaining to the committee in the case of preferential applicants. Some discretion is undoubtedly implied by section 2, sub-section (3), of the Amendment Act of" 1910, which provides that while the committee must grant at least (in this instance) seven publican's licenses in the district, it may grant up to fifteen." Supreme Court Test Possible. After the 'Waitoa decision, Mr. Cooney applied for an adjournment under section 92 of the Act. Counsel- held that ao final decision could be given that day by the committee in regard to the Waitoa license, and quoted authorities to support his contention that he (counsel) must receive notice stating the nature of the objection. The only evidence the committee could act on was evidence on oath.

Mr. Cooney urged that the majority of the committee having decided that his client possessed a Preferential right, the functions of the committee became circumscribed, and it could only exercise jurisdiction under section 109. Counsel asked for a statement in compliance with section 92, the true nature of the objection to be set forth. After a brief consultation witli the members, the chairman announced that the majority o r the committee reiterated their refusal.

Counsel asked that his application under section 92 be noted. Proceeding, he said that he would not waive his rights to object to the personnel of the committee. He definitely objected to Messrs. Marshall and Towers, those members being engaged in worl- in hotels in this town, and, consequently, not entitled to sit in judgment on his application. I

Counsel further objected to Mr. Walters on the ground, he alleged, that he took an active part in the preparation of the petition as lodged in the Court.

and, further, on the grounds that he had given a definite election pledge against the granting o a license at Waitoa.

In connection with the application for the Railway Hotel (Paeroa), the chairman said the committee considered that no preferential rights existed here.

Mr. McLiver put in a similar objection to that stated by counsel for the Waitoa applicant.

Mr. Cooney indicated that the Waitoa application would be tested in the Supreme Court.

In the matter of wholesale licenses, the committee decided, on a majority vote, not to grant any immediately, but to adjourn the same.

The sitting then adjourned until June 28, when it is possible licenses may be granted for a majority of approved applications, providing premises are completed.