ANOMALY IN LICENSING LAWS

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LII, Issue 8475, 21 December 1923, Page 3

ANOMALY IN LICENSING LAWS

BEER DEPOT LICENSE GRANTED AT MATA MATA.' It is an cid saying that there is no Act of Pai'liament through which a coach and horses cannot be driven, and AH Bumble's asseveration that “the law is a bass,’’ is equally accepted as a mere colloquial exaggera. tion of something which often appears to be true.

The recent opening of an establishment at Matamata, whereat the thirsty could obtain beer in any quantity of not less than two gallons, without the knowledge or consent of the Tauranga Licensing Committee, i s a case in point. It will be remembered that in the year 1920 an accommodation license, formerly existing at Maketu, was allowed by the owners to lapse, and subsequently the same parties applied to the Committee to grant them a license at Matamata, where there was no licensed house. There was strong opposition to the granting of such a license and after a very lengthy healing, in which five or six solicitors, some of considerable eminence, took part, the application wasi refused by a majority of the Bench. Investigation of the means by which the recently opened beer depot was able to carry on its trade boldly, where the proper authority to deal with such matters had ruled that no alcoholic liquor should be sold, revealed a strange anomaly in the law bearing on the matter. All Acts of Parliament which might be thought by any reasonable person to- have even the remotest bearing l on the sale of liquor, might be searched in vain for such authority, which, however, exists cunningly tucked away under the unpromising title of “The Finance Acti, 1917.’’ Section 46 of this Act gives a. Collector of Customs powder to grant to a licensed brewery a- license to establish such a depot for the sale of beer as is referred to above, at his own sole discretion, except with certain reservations referring to no-license areas. Naturally those who had formerly | opposed the granting of an accom- j modation license at Matamata, were j gravely concerned when they dis- j covered that the armour l under . which their district was protected j from the invasion of liquor sales- | men, was not hole-proof and that j beer in unlimited quantities could j now pour in. The circumstances | wer’e duly brought before the Min- ; ister of the Crown in charge of such j matters, and after looking into the j case he at once instructed the Col- j lector of Customs at Auckland, j who had granted the license, to can- j cel the same. This, the Collector j tried to do-, but only to find himself ' faced with a Supreme Court action j before Mr Justice Stringer, to deter- j mine his powers to cancel such license.

Mr R. McYeagh, for the Paeroa Brewery Company, and Mr Meredith for the Collector of Customs, argued the case, and His Honor gave later a written judgment to the following effect The short question was, whether an approval of such a license was revocable at the pleasure of the Collector. His Honor was of opinion that it was not. If the Collector could revoke at all, he could do so jnstanter, and, if he did so, the brewer would then be unable to make any further delivery of beer from the depot, without incurring heavy penalties. It would require very plain and unambiguous language to bring about consequences so absurd and unjust. Judgment was therefore given for the plaintiff Company, with costs <£lo/10/, and disbursements against the Collector of Customs.

So the matter now stands. Tire Licensing Bench had its attention called to the anomalous position, at its meeting this month, by one of its members and realised the absurdity of the situation created by allowing two authorities to have the handling of liquor licenses in one district-, especially when one of them was given only the power of granting with no power of after-supervi-sion and revocation. The Committee then passed the following resolution unanimously :—That this Committee understands that the Collector of Custom s at Auckland recently granted a license (by virtue of Section 46 of “The Finance Act, 1917”) to- the Paeroa- Brewery Company tosell beer at Matamata, from a depot. This Committee deems such a grant to be a reflection on itself in view of its decision, after a lengthy hearing, to-' refuse an application for an accommodation license at Matamata in 1920. The Supreme Court having more recently decided that such a license once granted cannot be cancelled, this Committee respectfully suggests to the Minister that steps be taken to revoke the power given to Collectors of Customs to grant such licenses, and that such power be vested only in Licensing Committees for the future, and that power be given them to cancel the same when deemed fit.' 1