WET OR DRY?

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 85, 7 October 1929, Page 10

WET OR DRY?

ASHBURTON HOTELS

LICENSING COMMITTEE'S POWERS

The question whether, after an interval of twenty-six years, hotel licences should again be granted in the township of Ashburton occupied the attention of the Court of Appeal to-day, when the case of Joseph Scales, owner of the old Somerset Hotel, Ashburton, against the Mid-Canterbury Licensing Committee was heard. The case was removed from the Supreme Court at Christehureh by order of Mr. Justice Smith, and the Court of Appeal was asked to indicate that the committee had jurisdiction to grant the licence . The facts were, briefly, that in 1902, a no-licence poll was carried in Ashburton, and as a result all licences lapsed on 30th June, 1903. The township of Ashburton had always been prior to the last General Election a part of the Ashburton licensing district, although the boundaries of that district were changed from time to time, mainly by the inclusion of strips from other licensing districts. In 1909, part of Geraldine was included, and six hotels lost their licences. Last year the boundaries were altered by the South Island Representation Commission, and the district of Ashburton was divided into two parts, each, of which was joined to a licensed area. In each case, the part of the Ashburton district joined had a smaller population than the other part of the new district. As a result, ,the township of Ashburton became part of the. Mid-Canterbury licensing district, which included part of the. Ellesmere district, and the whole district was, therefore, one in which licences might be granted. A licensing committee was duly set up under the provisions of the Licensing Act for the new electoral district, and it functioned for the first time last June, when the first annual meeting was held. Applications were made by the holders of licences in , the old Ellesmere district, and renewals were granted in the ordinary way. The present owners of the . four Ashburton hotels which lost their licences in 1903 applied to the committee at this meeting for new lie- . ences. They contended that section 30 of the Licensing Amendment Act, 1910, gave the committee power to grant new licences wherever the old licences had lapsed for any reason whatsoever, provided that application was made at the first annual meeting of the Licensing Committee having jurisdiction,over the old Ashburton district where licences had lapsed.. It was claimed that that applied to the lapsed licences of 1903. The committee, having heard th« applications and arguments for and against, decided that the section did not apply, and that they had no jurisdiction to grant the licences. Four actions were then commenced, in each of which the owner of the premisos sought a mandamus against the chairman, H. A. Young, S.M., and the members .of. the committee, commanding them to hear and determine the applications for the granting of licences. The present action was one of the four referred to, and, it is understood, it was removed to the Court of Appeal in order that applications for lice'nceß under somewhat similar circumstances might be decided according to the Court's finding.

There were on the- Bench Mr. Justice Herdman, Mr: Justice Adams, Mr. Justice MaeGregor, and Mr. Justice Ostler.

Mr. A. F. Wvright, with him Mr. Wi. J. Sim and Mr. F. S. Wilding appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. .I1. 0. Spratt with him Mr. Xj. A. Charles for the defendant committee.

The caso for tho plaintiff is proceeding. • . ■