THE MATAMATA LICENSING CASE.

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume XLVIII, Issue 7452, 15 July 1920, Page 3

THE MATAMATA LICENSING CASE.

Mr Reed's Concluding Address

j Mr Reed, on behalf of the applicant, said an attempt had apparently been made to draw a red herring across the scent. He desired to say distinctly and deliberately that the surest ion that possibly the committee could not grant an accommodation license in this district was such an attempt. An effort had been made to show that a publican^ license was a first class license and an accommodation license very inferior. The two were to all intents and purposes the same except in regard to the fee, and that an accommodation license could not be granted within five miles of another licensed house. In fact there seemed almost more power for a committee to deal with an accommodation license than with a publican's license. The liabilities and privileges of the license were, he submitted, I the same in each case, and in support of this contention Mr Reed quoted the portions of the Act bearing on the point An attempt had been made to show I that the committee was being asked to foist some inferior kind of license on the people of Matamata, and to frighten the committee against doing what was termed an illegal act. The thing was perfectly legal, and if anyone at all was to suffer it was the applicant. These points were raised to inflame the minds of the committee against the applicant The other point raised was that this was a trick. Mr Rioh mond had characterised it as a subterfuge and legalised trick, but this was held to be good'law in 1915 —five *years ago. If this was a subterfuge the legislature had had plenty of opportunity of dealing with it. As a matter of fact they had dealt with one portion of it in regard io publicans 1 licenses, but had left ac commodation licenses out of it. But the question of dropping a license and picking it up somewhere else had. a very much longer existence. P went back ' some eleven years, and before that it was done in England and met with the approval of the House of Lords. It was therefore abfurd, seeing that the legislature allowed this to^be done, to say that it was a subterfuge or a trie]'. Another point raised wasthat the people of Maketu should have had an opportunity of preventing the license being removed All he could say in reply to that was thct the license was the property of the person to whom it was gtanted, and that person was entitled to do what he liked with it. It was his private proper ty and the general public had nothing to do with the disposal of that license. In this particular case the license was advertised for sale for some time and was eventually bought by the "people who now desire to remove it to Matamata, and the ordinary form had been gone through of drop • ping the license at Maketu and applying for one at Matamata. Mr Grant and the people he represented had no cause of- legal complaint. The owners were entitled to deal with the license without any reference to any person there. As a matter of fact Mr Grant did not want the license for Maketu, buf for Paengaroa The applicant desired to transfer the license to a rising township where it was likely to be of some value. They had spent money and had a right to have the matter favourably considered.by the committee The matter of a license being dropped md.then a general scramble for another license in its place was an unheard of thing. In every case where a license had been dropped it had been done for the specific purpose of renewing the license where it was of | more use. These were the various red herrings drawn across the scent in order,- if possible, to in fluence the committee against the applicant. Supposing, as in the old clays, the committee was entitled to grant licenses where they thought fit to suit the public, would not Matamata be entitled to have a license. There was a provision in the Act—which his friends had tried to dnig in j against him, but which really helped him—that where there had been a sudden increase in the ■ population of a district a petition could be ma tie to the Government to grant a license for each 700 inhabitants. This showed that the intention of the legislature was that for every 700" inhabitants a license was more or less a necessity, or at all e\ents it was right that a license should be granted, in this-case there was a rising township with 800 to 900 inhabitants, which in accordance with this view should be granted a license. Of course his friends would say "Why don't you apply to the Government." but could the committee imagine any Executive Council bothering itself to grant permission to issue a license at the present time. A petition *had been presented which contained the signatures of some 200 townspeople and about 100 farmers. Most of the prominent people had signed the petition. On the other hand, Mr Black, the proprietor or the board ing house, was objecting. Mr Black may or may not be inconvenienced, but it could not be for long, because the place was so progressive that the accommoda tion provided by the hotel could not affect him very long. The second opposition came from the proprietors of the factories in Mr tamata whose employees had nearly all signed the petition to grant the license. These employees were certainly entitled to consideration. A man was entitled to have a drink ot alcoholic li'.iuoi

and the mere fact that some people object to it being sold at all was no reason why the committee should not grant permission to the people who desire to have it. The question as to whether the efficiency of the factories wou'd be affected did not seem -to him to be material. If inefficiency would follow to the extent suggested could the '.committee understand the company spending some thirty or forty thous-ind pounds to erect a factory right alongside^ ! pubjic house as was proposed at ' Morrinsville Mr Reed then quoted the opinions of learn cd judges regardi n g th c rights of people to have liquor if they want it. From these remarks he contended that the question of supplying liquor in moderate quantities to the people had to be considered as part of the require ments in giving a license in a district. In conclusion he merely wished to say that the question as to whether drinking' was going on at the present time was not very material, but from the evidence that had been given the committee could judge that there was a certain amount of illicit drinking going on. That sort of thing did not, as a rule, continue where there was a licensed house. He desired also to emphasise the fact that the procedure had been perfectly legitimate, ai.d had received the sanction of the Court of Appeal. The Maketu license had been offered for sale publicly and had been bought for the I specific purpose of placing it j where it would be of more value to the persons who bought it and to the community i.i which it was to be placed. A large sum .of money was paid for it, and a large sum had been spent since. That should not be an absolute reason why the committee should grant the license, but it was a I reason to consider why the license should be thrown open to anyone to apply for. The whole question was if the committee had the disposal of as many licenses as were applied for, would it not consider that Mnta mala was now entitled to a license. If it did then he resD?etI fully asked that the committee I grant the applicant a license.

The Committee then retired to consider its decision, and on resuming, the Chairman, Mr Ken rick, as already announced, stated that the decision of a majority ol" the Committee was that the application could not be granted. Each party was ordered to pay its own rusts.