A PUBLICAN'S CASE.

Press, Volume XLI, Issue 6055, 11 February 1885, Page 3

A PUBLICAN'S CASE.

At theKaiapoi Court on Monday, before C. Whitefoord, Esq., E.M., an interesting case between two well-known holders of publicans' licenses was heard.

The case was W. Buraip v. W. Fraaer, claim J221 83 sd, for unexpired portion of hotel license fee, and £5 15s for rates from December 1884 to July 1885. Mr Kippenberger appeared for plaintiff, Mr Swarm for defendant.

Plaintiff stated he had 'agreed .to transfer the license of Middleton's Hotel, Kaiapoi, in December, under verbal agreement in the usual way. He was to take stock and furniture at valuation. He had applied to defendant for the items of this chum, but he said that plaintiff had had enough out of him. Plaintiff signed a notice of transfer of the license, and defendant said he would pay it in three weeks. It was the custom to charge a proportion of the license fee when selling out. To Mr Swarm—The valuation did not include the balance of the license fee. About JBSOO or .£6OO has been paid by the defendant, but there has been no final settlement. When the license was transferred to plaintiff eight years ago he believed he paid a proportion of the fee. The rates were not paid, lut he, plaintiff, was liable. To Bench—The defendant said he would have to pay his proportion of the license fee unexpired. It was mentioned on December 18th. Defendant gave him a promissory note, and discounted it about a week later.

Mr Savage, an hotel-broker of twenty years' experience, was proceeding to ahow what the custom, was in respect to the incoming landlord paying the unexpired part of the License fee, when Mr Swarm objected. Witness said it was usual to pay the proportion of insurance, license, rates, and taxes. It was a custom where there was no special arrangement. To Mr Swarm— Should include the proportion of the same in the inventory of the valuation made. To the Bench—Had asked persons for whom he was valuing for the information regarding these matters. There were hardly two cases of valuation in these matters alike.

W. Fxaeer, defendant, said not a word was ever said about a proportion of the licensing fee till four days after the settlement. .He had since told plaintiff he would pay it on getting the permanent transfer. The first intimation for rates was in the summons.

To Mr Kippenberger—The temporary transfer of the license was signed by the Chairman of the Kaiapoi Committee in December, and he (defendant) was now holder of the temporary transfer. Some things had been valued and paid for in January. 0. Hansen stated he let the hotel to Vincent and Co. tot Mr Burnip. They paid no license fee, and were to transfer it back without expecting license fee. He went into the, hotel some years ago with; out paying tbe.then existing license cc. G\ Clarke, Town Clerk, stated the rates had not been paid by plaintiff. These were made payable on June, 1884, and for year ending March, 1885. O. W. Wearing, who had held four publican's licenses, stated on going into an, hotel he had never paid the unexpired portion of the license fee. ■

Mr Swarm contended that till the rates were paid the plaintiff could not recover, as under the Bating Act in the event of any default on the part of the party owing the rate the occupier was liable to the Borough Council. The conditions precedent with regard to the license were that the defendant should have his permanent transfer and be approved by the Licensing Committee.

The Resident Magistrate, in giving judgment, said the contention regarding the license fee could not hold, unless there had been an agreement about it. It appeared defendant had taken the temporary transfer and promised to pay the fee, and judgment was 'given for plaintiff for £21 8s sd. Begarding the rates they were not paid, and plaintiff could at present not recover. Costs were allowed.