Sydenham Licensing Committee.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 6171, 11 June 1891, Page 3

Sydenham Licensing Committee.

EXPLANATION BY THE CHAIRMAN

SIX RENEWALS REFUSED

[PEB PBESS ASSOCIATION.]

Chbistchuech, This day,

The Sydenham Licensing Committee aunounoed their decision this morning with regard to the application for licenses. The Chairman said the circumstances under which the Committee acted were unusual, and he deemed it necessary to indicate plainly on what basis they proceeded. They were elected as a prohibitionist Committee, and were under the impression that they were empowered to refuse all licenses. They found themselves restrained from such action by Mr Justice Denniston's interpretation of _ke Act, and felt they had no option but to obey i-uch an ord-1 until such a time as His Honor's order ha. been revorsed or confirmed by the Court of Appeal. Thetwopoiutswhichtheyhadgiven effect to were—(l) that not to refuse licenses applied foi on the ground oniy that tbe licenseswer.notrequired by a majorityof the ratepayers of Sydenham, and (2) that in considering whether such licenses are required they must consider whether they are required according to the reasonable wants of the residents whomay desire to purchase liquor. The Committee hid striven to act in recognition of these directions, but it seemed that His Honor did not direct them to ignore the desire of the community that no excessive drinking facilities should exist in their midst, and did not direct them to more than allow provision for meeting the reasonable requirements of the residents where hotels are in close proximity to one another. They had taken this fact into consideration in dealing with the applications. The Chairman then announced that the decision of the Committee was that they refused the renewals of six out of the eight applications, on the ground that the Committee, of their own motion, and after hearing evidence, were of opinion that the premises were not required. With regard to the two remaining applications, the Committee were inclined to grant them, but postponod decision until June 22nd. Notice of application for adjournments given in six cases were absolutely refused.