THE BLENIIEIM LICENSING. CASE. A NEW POINT RAISED.

Evening Post, Volume LXIII, Issue 153, 28 June 1902, Page 5

THE BLENIIEIM LICENSING . CASE. A NEW POINT RAISED.

Before the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Denniston, and Mr. Justice Edwards, argument was continued till lato ye.tcrday evening on the motion for writ of certiorari to quai>h the license granted by the Wairau Licensing Committee to tt iiliam Reader in lespect of a m;w hoiel in Blenheim. The two giounds for <...>» motion were that there was medoleiuij' .- tion and bias on the part of .viessr* H. Reader and Horton, two members oi tha Committee, aud that the requueuieuU of the Licensing Ace hud not bean complied with, in regard to nccouiniodaiiou, Aubsus Guhy and Myeis appealed lor tlw luoveis for the writ (Joiner ii J ei»uey aud W. Can), and Mr. Skurcit lor \\ . Rcudcr. After deuuiig vith the sccot.d ground, Mr. .Myers Kuinuud up his contentions thus: That tbfre was no ical evident. 4 heard by the Committee, and ths dwiision ought to be levie^td; tliat il it weio reviewed the Louit should tlad that the requirements of s,ectiou 08 ot the Liconning Act in regard to accommodation had not been couip.ied with ; und that in any event, ou the uffiduvitu died on this point, there was strong evidence of bias on the part of the Committee which served as an argument m support of the case put iorward by Mr. Gully. Mr. Skerrett submitted that any objection as to the disqualification of * member of a Licensing Committee on the ground of interest or bias was precluded by statute. This point, he suid, was a new one, and had not been reused in the previous cases before the Full Court or the Court ot Appeal. In support of this contention he relied on s,ub-a;ctioii 4 of section 12 of the Licensing Act of 1881. which read : "No objection s.Jiall be made to any license ;>nii:tu3, it-new-ed, or removed in pursuance of this Act on the ground merely that the Licensing Committee who granted, icnrncd, ur n. moved the same were not qualified to ' make such grant, renewal, or icmoviil. ' The preceding section provided that no person was qualified to be elected as a member of a Committee who wus interested in the manufacture or sale of liquor, or in licensod premises, in the manner prescribed in detail. Any person so disqualified who acted or sat as tt- member of the Committee wusj liable to a penalty of £50. Sub-section 4 of section 12, he submitted, had to be lead according to its express teitns, and was not limited to the disqualifications nien- ! tioned in section 11. No doubt .-.eie were two interpretations, namely, that it upplied only tc the disqualifications enumerated in section 11, so that it had a general meaning. If it applied to all disqualifications, then, Mr. Skerrett contended, it prevented ceitiomri. There was a similar provision in the English law, but there the equivalent to "subsection 4 was expressly limited to the grounds previously enumerated, and wav not geenrai, like ours. The aim of section 11 -was to exctude persons interested, such as brewers, wine merchants, etc., and if they sat they were liable to a penalty of £50. The Chief Justice pointed-out that Mr. Skerrett, on his contention, would have to go the length of saying that if a man -sat on a Licensing' Committee and apElied for a license which was granted on is vote, nothing could be done to prevent it. Mr. . Skerrett concurred. If objection could not be taken after the issue of a license by a Committee- on which was a member who was interested in a major degree — say a brewer or a wine merchant — it could not be taken .on account of a person sitting with a minor interest. On that point he could say no more, and would leave it to the Court. He went on to deal with the allegations ot predetermination and bias. He had conceded with regard to H. Reader that ho was avowedly disqualified from sitting, not on the ground of predetermination, but on the ground that his relationship to the applicant for the licciiup, hh brother, would prevent him giving an impartial judgment on the matter. In no senso could ho be said to h.nve prejudged or predetermined. H. Reader anil Penney (the present chief objector) hnd been accomplices, .if that word could bf> used, and were the persons who had promoted the application by one Owen for a new license at Deep Creek, was applied for in the place of the Dcen Creek license that was bping allowed to lapse. It was hoped then that the Hecnrp would be continued at Deep Cresk uvA not allowed .to bo removed to Blenheim ; but in the meantime W. Reader had come in as the applicant for the license in Blenheim, and on that application H. Reader did not vote. Mr. Rkerrett was still dealing with this branch of the casw •when the Court adjourned till 10 o'clock this morning. TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. During further argument this iuortu ing, the Chief Just 100 &aid he did nut^ think H. Reader meant to do auythiug* wrong. With regard to the alleged bias and predetermination on the pare of Horton, Mr. Skerrett submitted tout; predetermination which amounted to a prejudging, must be a fixed and deliberate resolution to do a certain thing. What was mainly relied ou was a conversation over a glass of whisky in the course ot «' heated and acrimonious discussion, and statements made angrily and heatedly. Such a statement could not be construed into a deliberate promise of undertaking. If tho need of a. now license was a mere matter of opinion, it was immaterial if a member with local knowledge had considered beforehand that he bnould vote for th© license. While Mr. Skerrett was urging that the accommodation at the hotel complied with the Act, Mr. Justice Deauiston said he thought the alleged accommodation was an obvious farce, whatever might be the position in law. The Ohief justice mentioned that apparently (among other things) there was not proper sanitary convenience, the kitchen had no tireplace, a- bedroom and a convenience could only bo approached through a sittingroom, ono room was on unlighted portion of the passnge cut in half, two lireplaces had no mantelpieces, and there Was no provision for ventilation or lireescapes. The passage room My. Justice Denniston described as "an uuliglited dco." Tho words "style, comfort and convenience," could not be said to apply in any sense to any pait of the place. It was an attempt to scrape through. The man who proposed it knew perfectly well beforehand that ho w.-.s going to get his license. Mr. Skerrett said thew were uunvbera of rooms in Wellington hotels that had absolutely no light at all, except actifichy. In the present case the wholo thing was provisional. Mr. Justice Denniston — But way could not the man try tc be decent to begin with? Mr. Skerretfr contended that the plate was reasonably convenient, and complied with Ilie provisions of the Act. He submitted, on authority, thaT what was necessary was that tho place should b» habitable. Xo doubt lha rooms were inconveniently arranged, but that did not prevent them being roonn, aud that was what the statute required. (Left sitting.) Tho opening services in connection wiiu tlu> nun Pnmitno Methodist Church in \VrKu-v{voi>L \\ tl !■>•» c.-rt'tnwa to morrow morning, afi. inoci^ «> <■ -«»im _