A PUBLICAN'S LICENSE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 95, 19 October 1909, Page 2

A PUBLICAN'S LICENSE.

APPEAL TO PRIVY COUNCIL. Yesterday afternoon the Court of Ap-peal—Acting-Chief Justice Williams (President), and Justices Denniston, Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman — was engaged in hearing argument in the case in which Sarah Mulhem (represented by Mr J. H. Hosking, K.C., and Mr. Johansen) asked for a mandamus to compel the Aehburton Licensing Committee to hear and determine her application for a license, which was refused, on the ground that the committee had no jurisdiction. The plaintiff's licensed premises were in the Geraldine district, but aftei the alteration of electoral boun-daries-it was. attached to the Ashburton district. At the licensing poll in* the latter district the three-fifths majority required to carry restoration of licenses was not obtained, and the Returning Officer declared that that proposal was not carried. Mr. Hosking submitted that under the provisions -relating to the licensing poll the result of every valid licensing poll had effect. until it was superseded by a subsequent valid licensing poll, that is to .say, until some other proposal is carried. The result of Geraldine's previous poll (continuance) had effect until it was superseded by a subsequent valid licensing poll. It was, therefore, possible to have licensed houses within a no-license area. Under section 106 of the Licensing Act every license had an absolute right of renewal, subject to the provisions relating to the licensing poll and to the objections and discretionary power of the committee. No proposal was carried either at Ashburton or Geraidine, and if no proposal was carried there was no valid licensing poll. Mr. A. S. Adams, who appeared tor : G. H. Mann, who objected to the renewal of tho license, in" reply, said Mr. Hosking, in order to succeed, must satisfy their Honours that subsection c of section Bof the Act was inoperative. It was impossible to contend that the provision for submitting the two questions on the restoration paper was intended to ascertain the number of votes against restoration, -with a view to requiring a three-fifths majority to satisfy section 8 of thft. Act. Since that time forms t>f the ' schedule were identical with those in the Act of 1895, and section 8 became lawful for the first time in 1904. Prior to that date, where . portion of a district containing publichouses was added to a no-license district, a vote had to be taken in the new district for continuance, reduetioiy, or no-license, and a three-fifths majority was required t<j carry no-license. Section Bof the Act -was ; passed to alter this. If tho argument t of Mr. Hosking was correct, no alteraj tion had been made, and the section was, therefore, nugatory. > His Honour Mr. Justice Williams, in ; delivering a jndgment that was con- , curred in by the other members of the i Conrt, said there was no doubt the law [ created a hardship, but it was too clear , to permit the Court to avoid giving i effect to itr Subsection c of section 8 . of the Licensing Act provided that where more than half of the population of the new district were living m a no-license area the poll should be taken under section 38. The proviso under that section \ was that if the < result of such poll were that licenses should not be restored in > the district, then, notwithstanding such i result, every license existing at the time i of the taking of the poll should continue in force until the current term of the license had elapsed. That proviso was inserted by the Legislature to meet , such cases as that before the Court, and although it was a hardship that the plaintiff should be deprived of her vested i right to her license by a vote which was practically a minority vote, such an occasion was in the contemplation of the ' Legislature, and was expressed in the proviso. [ Leave was granted Mr. Hosking to ap- ' peal to the Privy Council.