CONDUCT OF HOTELS

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1008, 24 December 1910, Page 6

CONDUCT OF HOTELS

MAGISTRATE'S VIEW. MAN AND WIFE BOTH NEEDED. APPEAL TO HIGHER COURT. Is it necessary for the proper conduct of an hotel.that tho license© shall bo married and that his wifo' shall reside on tiie premises? Many licensing, authorities in this country have answered this question in the affirmative and have adjusted their practice accordingly. Their right to do so was disputed in an interesting case that camo before Mr. Justice Cooper in the Supremo Court 3'esterday. The plaintiff was Frederick James Bright, settler, of .Eketahuna, aiid the defendant was Andrew Duncan .Thomson, stipendiary magistrate. ■ Tho plaintiff's case, as set out, was that being desirous .of obtaining a transfer of-the license of the Telegraph Hotel at Otaki, he applied to Mr. A. D. Thomson, S.M., for a certificate of his fitness to hold such a license. Defendant refused to givo a certificate on the grounds that ..(a) plaintiff's wife did not .-intend to go and reside with him at. tho_ hotel; (b) that defendant .had made it a . rule to refuse a certificate of fitness (except in exceptional circumstances) to ' married men whoso wives would not be resident at tho hotel.. Plaintiff stated that otherwise the magistrate • was satisfied as to his (plaintiff's); character, record, and financial position. Plaintiff claimed that the-.magistrate, had exceeded his jurisdiction in refusing a certificate, and asked tho Court to issue a mandamus ordering defendant to issue the necessary certificate. •

For the defence it was stated that tho license had previously been held by a single man, and tho result was most unsatisfactory from a moral point of view. The magistrate considered it essential for tho protection of the female servants and in order that the house might be properly conducted, that tho licensee's wife should, reside with him on tho premises. On November 25 Mrs. Bright called on , defendant and said sho would under no circumstances-reside in the hotel in Otaki. , v Mr. T. Yoiing- appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. H. H.. Ostler for defendant. Magistrate's Powers. Coring .said the plaintiff was for 27 years a-.member of tho Wairarapa Licensing. Committee and was also a justice of tho peace. Ho had placed his son in charge of his farm, .'and on giving up his saw-milling'business a short time ago he decided to •'take"a hotel atOtaki. Ho knew of no reason why ho should, not be considered competent to manage. a : hotel. ... ,H;s Honour: Nothing is said against his character, but the magistrate thinks he should not carry on a hotel when he is. living apart from his wifo. If MrsBright was prepared to' go and live with her husband, the magistrate would, appare.ntly grant tho license. Ho says he considers it essential for tHe protection. of the female employees and the proper conduct, of tho house that the wife of the licensee should live on the promises.

. , Mr ' : young maintained that the Magistrate had no discretion'to take objection. on those grounds. Ho had Baid that ho ■ would only grant' alicenso to a man whoso -wife", would not reside on tho premises if he had' been in the business before,'and could'not well turn to anything else, in which case 1 there would be hardship to., the . applicant if the license were refused. . His Honour: You say that if a man is of good, character and competent to carry,, itdoes not matter whether lie is married or single? . Mr; Young: Yes. '; "/ Counsel;'also pointed outV that the plaintiffs wife was not separated from him, but she had merely said that she would not, under any circumstances, go to'live at the hotel. - Both were elderly peoplo, the plaintiff being' nearly sixty years of age. Tho Act specifically stated that a widow, or a woman separated from her husband, could hold a license. The Magistrate was trying to add something to the Act, namely, a provision that a license . should riot be granted to an unmarried maii, or to a man whose wife did not reside on the premises. If the ■ Magistrate's decision held,- all unmarried nien, and also all mamed men living apart .from their wives were disqualified from holding hotel licenses. '

A General Custom. Mr. Ostler, in opening for the, defence,- that it was the custom of the licensing authorities, throughout New Zealand to refuse licenses to unmarried men and men whose wives would not live on tho promises. Mr. Young admitted'that licenses had been refused in many instances on those grounds. . Mr. "Ostler saidhe was informed that at the present timo there,was not a single license in Wellington held by a man' who had not a wife'living with ■him an the premises;: Counsel went oril to argue that-the Magistrate had merely I exercised his right of judicial discretion. His Honour remarked that if it W6TB Md that a Magistrate had properly exercised his discretion in.refusing to .grant, a ■ certificate in a case like the present one, and then another Magistrate in another similar case granted a certificate, the Supreme Court would not be able to grant a. mandamus to compel the second Magistrate'to refuse the certificate. ; >1 Mr. Ostler concurred, and said that Mr. Justice Edwards had laid it down that- .refusal of a. certificate by one Magistrate did not prevent the applicant from going to another Magistrate. Counsel. also . pointed . out that Mr. Thomson, in exercising his discretion, did not state the. reason. Tho reason was stSted in a letter. The restriction, which tho Magistrate, following the practice of the other licensing authorities, had exercised in this case, was entirely in accord with tho spirit and intention of the licensing legislation, and not against its letter. His Honour said he would think it over, but ho was .not at all sure that it .was not a good rule.that a license should not be held by an unmarried man, or a man whoso wifo would not livo there. Could riot a Magistrate say: "I consider that the applicant is unfit to hold tho license of this particular house, becauso he is an unmarried man and there are female servants ? And could any Court.reverse such a derision? Ho would give' his' judgment on January i.