WINES AND SPIRITS

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 142, 20 June 1927, Page 11

WINES AND SPIRITS

MONOPOLY ALLEGED

A LKENSMG INQUIRY

, Allegations made at the annual meeting of the. Wellington licensing Goinmittee ■ that a monopoly was being created in the wholesale wine and spirit business in Wellington by the holding of more than one license by the same concern were investigated at a meeting of the committee to-day. Mr. W. G. Riddell, SJML, presided,' and there were associated with him Messrs. J. W. Ellison,Ji J. Clarke, T. Meadowcfoft. and M. A, Carr. ;.-,- . .-■ • .:•"; ..

At the outset, the chairman stated that th« ' committee ■ had • decided to grants renewal of license to Ellis and Manton, Ltd. (Mr. E. Parry), as it was due to ah oversight that the application \nw not approved ■ at-the annual meeting.

Bepresenting-Sharland and Co., Ltd., Mr. P. S. Macaasey quoted authorities in support of his application for renewal and contended that the company had a vested right to have its license renewed at least until next-yeari-: The company he .submitted required a license for the sale of "spirits of wine which was used for the manufacture of 1 paint and other commodities.

Mr. E/ Parry appearing: for Gilmer's Koyal Oak Hotel Ltd. produced an affidavit showing.that, the company's license had been' fully availed 0f... He supported Mr, MacasseVs legal argumenta. . ■: ; ';■'.:;■■:■ :■■■:.'■

On behalf of Penfold's': ■ "Wines Ltd. Mr. P.H. Putnam submitted that even if the company's license were not, used the committee could not use its discretionary power .to refuse a .renewaL However, counsel was instructed that the license had been used and was very necessary iii the: company's interests. .." .-.-. -• :

Mr. A., T. Toung, acting for Alexander Young (Youngs. Chemical Co.), said that the- applicants' license was made ,U3e .of at premises other than those of.--T.Van4 -.W.- ; YouMg, -Ltd.,' and was necessary in his business. Mr. H. F. O'Leary supported th application of Arthur Daniel Kennedy for a new license. Counsel contended that previous -.holders'- of licenses had no vested right to renewal, but that all cases should be dealt with on a common ■ footing. :'.■■ Where applicants • were under ■suspicions of having failed to use their licenses for legitimate purposes, he • said; new applicants should be given .preference, v \- The applications of James M'Donald and Peter Cohnell-for new licenses were supported by Mr. W. Perry and Mr. A. .J.Mazengarb respectively, both counsel, adopting the arguments put forward by Mr.: Q'Leary: Further hearing of the cases was ad* 3onrned to 4th July. ■ .-.-.'.