SUBURBS LICENSING INQUIRY.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 411, 21 January 1909, Page 3

SUBURBS LICENSING INQUIRY.

~;-. PETITION WITHDRAWN.;: /"'/ '; "-QUESTION; OF-COSTS/ARGUED; / ': Tl ? e m a t^" I pf' the ■Wellington Suburbs Licensing Poll Petition .was'mentioned at'tno" Court /beiore.Dr.A.M'Arthur, S.M;,. and Mr.%' P- . S-M. . the other., magistrate, Mr. W.' U.. Riddel ,-b.M,, .not ; being,present, on ac-' count of ilness. -Mr. M.; Vers, with him> !^Af tZg i ll ! b b ni peared for ' th<s Petitioners,--and ,Mr..> A.' -R; Atkinson, with him Mri Ost--lfir, tor the respondents;.;.' .■■!••-. .::■,,: - - ■■W^r.-mflflar^ 1 ' Mr! ,W.- G-vßiddell i ;,S.M!,-was not.'able to'sit at present, but might bo there uv the af-' .ternpori.';< ''.■'•.'-, -- : '>'....'.--..' '" .'..": ;.:Mr'., Myers:informed thp:Bench.that it had been; agreed between the "parties, to havo the,matter,disposed : of at.once.'. It was"not the intention, of the -petitioners to proceed in^M^ Son ln.thevMasterton inquiry, it .was clear the petitions could'not- succeed,/ notwithstandin E ,the :; tact;that certain of the. allegations "in j he + petition could be .proved. " fehthat to proceed would.be unnecessarily tak--ing. up -the time of-the Court, arid incurring .unuecessary expense. Mr.VAtkinson had been * m^. v.<ffite last;:that S -pbtition-.would.not-. be/proceeded:-with and .Wm : tatetioned. this &l givesorne kdS "pa-.t0.-the,.Court as: to what tho costs should: be, ; m. .connection -with-thb: petition. The. Court would see- that .most: of the work that, would, have had ,to. be done was not required because; of'the: intimation given by , pedtioiiars. /Further,. it must have - of. the. Masterton; Petition,. - that this /one would not be proceeded with. Before Christ/' : inas, when, it- had been asked that'the pett| ton;should not be heard "uritU January 27' it ...was known: that the' petition largely .pended.onthe. result '; /" Sk wit^raw

;-.-...Mr.;-- Atkinson /urged .that counsel for the petitioners ;of/the mark when/he said that' the notice/had saved so much work. ■ He (Mr Atkinson)' had -had pZle working throughout the constituency for the purpose of proving ; counter irregularities, and' he had actually issued three subpoenas 'be--tore getting the not ce.,. ;One' of'these was served,-but. se.-t ce of . the other Two had been stopped. .Work never ceased-'from. the-time, he got the "petition until: he rS :noping ;$?: were The' Co Ur t allowed''respondents £10- 10s. : :/ : :Mr;:,Myers c subinitted been liearmg pf/ihe petition which Withdrawu,;.and therefore what, remained of .the;,£-20 deposit should be handed back to the petitioners. Section:36/ Sub.section 2of theJjcensmg; Act, .'referring, to costs, proTided.that,..subject, to any. such order the Court, shaU diwet.; that;the deposit a com! panymg anypetitiofunder Section 30of the Act shall. ,bo returned to the- person who paidthe same .unless the Court is S that the petitioners have-failed the, grounds specified.in their petition 'n which case, the deposit (or, the surplus re maining: after ■satisfying such orderV O l,oii be forfeited to .the Crown ' ' ' ' shall ' /:The t Court-decidedJ ; hat i the'balance of tt 6 -'. deposit remaining, aiter^ the payment :ef: l\£ bursements should, be refunded: tb petitioners