THE LICENSING ACT.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12683, 22 December 1906, Page 6

THE LICENSING ACT.

INVEKCAEGILL AND NO-LICENSB. (srECIAX. TO "ths mil.") DUNEDIN, December 21. An argument of considerable interest hearing on tho licensing difficulty in Invercargill was taken before S7r Justice Chapman in Chambers thia afternoon. The case was that of Roope v. McDowell. Roope is a brewer, and McDowell is tho Oolleeotor of Customs at Inveroargill. Since the carrying of no-license, Roope has had a beer depot just across the Waihopai river, art 9 beyond the no-lioene9 boundary, where he has been retailing _ beer in small kegs. Recently regulations wars made by tho Commissioner of Customs forbidding tbe issue of further permits to his or other such depots. The matter before the Court to-day was a notice ef motion for a mandamus to compel thee Collector to issue permits to the Rlaintiff under section 32 of the Beer ►uty Act of 1880 Por the removal ot beer to his depot for storage and sale. Tbe new regulations provide that any such depote must be five mile* beyon. the boundary. Mr Sim, for plaintiff, contended that tlie regulations wero ultra vires, his principal argument ba-ing that the Act waa a fiscal one. and that the regulations were not necessary for its effectual administration. Mr Maoassey (for the Collector) contended that section 32 of the Act was permissive, and not mandatory, that t* - '* Collector oould only grant permits subject to tho regulations, that the plaintiff had acquired no status under tne Act, and that it could be contended that the regulations would assist in the protection of the revenue. His Honour reserved judgment.