LICENSE REFUSED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 74, 29 March 1933, Page 5

LICENSE REFUSED.

EXHIBITOR'S APPEAL.

PROPOSED NEW THEATRE.

REGULATIONS CRITICISED.

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.)

WELLINGTON, this day.

The Court of Appeal to-day gave further consideration to an application brought by Robert James Kerridge, of Gisborne, for a writ of mandamus ordering Roy Girling-Butchcr, chief inspector under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1928, to consider and deal with an application made by Kerridge on December 2 last for a license for the projection of cinematograph films in respect of certain premises to be erected in Hinemoa Street, Rotorua. Continuing argument for defendant this morning, the Solicitor-General submitted that the wording of section 26 of the Board of Trade Act (under which the Minister had declined a license to exhibit to plaintiff) left the manner of regulation and control of the film industry entirely within the discretion of the Governor-General in Council, and did not permit such regulation and control to' be subject to review by the Courts. Mr. Justice Reed: Do you mean the powers of the Governor-General in Council to regulate the film industry are not to be strictly construed? The Solicitor-General: I say the reasonableness of the use of the powers cannot be challenged in the Courts. The words of section 26, I submit, were very carefully chosen in order to • give the Governor-General in Council these ejetensive powers, and to exempt the use of such powers from any review. My submission is that a person whose application for a license has been declined has no redress of any kind in Court. Public opinion would soon be aroused if any injustice was done, and the matter would be brought up in Parliament.

"Small Chance of Justice." Mr. Justice Ostler: That is to say that a poor man, with little influence, has a email chance of obtaining justice?

The Chief Justice: Could not the regulations have been expressly worded against the monopoly control of films, instead of as widely as at present? The Solicitor-General: That would still further increase the complaint of "more Government in business."

The Solicitor-General said the power of a Minister was subject to several definite limitations. For instance, he was not given power totally to prohibit the carrying on of an industry, nor was he given the power to destroy existing rights or property. The Board of Trade Act was not directed against all monopolies, but only against those detrimental to industries of New Zealand.

Mr. Justice Ostler: Does it give the Minister power to perpetuate monopolies ? The Solicitor-General: Only beneficent monopolies. The Chief Justice: That is, the Executive may create a beneficent monopoly and leave it to the Minister to say whether it is beneficent or not? (Proceeding.)

A report of yesterday's proceedings appears on page 11.