GRANT OF LIQUOR LICENCE

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27169, 13 October 1953, Page 11

GRANT OF LIQUOR LICENCE

Committee’s Decision Upheld JUDGMENT IN SUPREME COURT (New Zealand Press Association) . AUCKLAND, October 12. io justify interference with a licensing committee decision merely because a member of the committee and an applicant for a licence were both interested in the same political party would require a very strong case, said Mr Justice Stanton in a reserved judgF l s n ’’ ln Auckland Supreme Court * J? e re f. u sed to quash a decision °u- Franklin Licensing Committee, which last year granted a wholesale liquor licence to Harold James Thomas, a mu mpan y man ager, of Pukekohe. The plaintiff was Alexander Edward Muir, a Tuakau wine-seller and far*ner. He alleged political associations in the National Party between Thomas and two members of the committee. The plaintiff also alleged that the committee acted without jurisdiction beus .® some members were absent when the licence was granted. His Honour said the association between Mr and Mrs Thomas and Mr Richard Wilcox, a member of the committee, was a political one. Mr Wilcox was the chairman of the National Party for the Franklin electorate, and Mr >/r Or^v S was secretary-organiser. Mrs Thomas was active in the women’s section of the party. “All these persons have put on record the extent of their association and activities in relation to their political affiliations, and it cannot be said that anything more can be established than that they hold the positions mentioned,” his Honour said. “They have had contacts which are natural and inevitable. Qualifications for Membership ‘Persons fit to be members of the committee may normally be expected to be persons of some standing in the community. Therefore they are likley to hold office in local bodies and societies.” Merely because a member of the committee and an applicant were both interested in the same political partyeven to the extent existing in the case —would require a very strong case to justify interference with the committee’s decision. There were safeguards in the facts that Stipendiary Magistrates were chairmen of licensing committees and that there was an appeal from their decisions to the Licensing Commission. On the question of members’ absence, his Honour said that the remaining members of the committee were sufficient to constitute a quorum.