MANDAMUS SOUGHT

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 86, 8 October 1929, Page 14

MANDAMUS SOUGHT

ASHBUETON LICENCES

SOMERSET HOTEL CASE

Interesting legal argument was heard I in the Court of Appeal yesterday afternoon in the case in which Joseph Scales, lessee of the Somerset Hotel, Ashburton, is the plaintiff, and the Mid-Canter-bury Licensing Committee is the defendant. The plaintiff is seeking a mandamus that the committee be called upon.to hear and determine his aplication for a licence which the committee decided last June it had no power to grant. On the Bench -were Mr. Justice Herdman, Mr. Justice Adams, Mr. Justice HaeGregor, and Mr. Justice Ostler. Mr. A. F. Wright,' with him Mr. W. J. Sim and Mr. F. S. Wilding, appeared for th? plaintiff, and Mr. F. C. Spratt, with him Mr. L. A. Charles, for the defendant. Before commencing his argument Mr. Wright said that the following , three questions would be put to the Court: (1) Was the mid-Canterbury licensing district one in which licences might be granted; (2) if it was such a district, might licences be granted in respect of premises situated in such portion of the mid-Canterbury district where the principle of No-licence formerly obtained; (3) if so, what were the machinery sections of the Licensing Act under wihch such licences might be granted? In other words, had the committee power or jurisdiction, to grant licences in respect of the premises which formerly were licensed in the Ashburton district?

When the mid-Canterbury district was created, Mr. Wright submitted, the part of Ashburton included ceased to be a-No-lieence area, and became'part of a district in which licences might be granted. Counsel pointed out that the plaintiff was not seeking to increase the number of licences} which was fixed by legislation since 1873, but was merely asking for a renewal of one of ' the licences which was in, force prior to 1903. , The arguments on which he relied were: (1) That the position created in Ashburton by the establishment of a new district was analogous to a vote of restoration hj the electors; and, (2) that Section 30 of the Licensing Act, 1910, gave a right to the revival of the licences. ,■ Counsel said that a3 a result of the findings of the Representation Commission the people of Ashburton were for ever precluded from expressing their views on the question of local restoration.

_ Mr. Justice Ostler: "Notwithstanding the fact that every one of them voted for National Continuance, they could not get their licences back."

Mr. Justice MacGregor: "They could vote, but not drink."

Counsel submitted that the plaintiff's" ease came within the very words of Section 30 of the 1910 Act, for the reason that the application was made in re.spect of premises which had previously been licensed, and also because it was for a licence of the same description as that .which had not been renewed, or which had ceased to exist. The plaintiff had done everything necessary to bring the matter before the committee. The people of Ashburton were in a worse position than if they were in a wholly No-licence district, because they would then have the question of local restoration submitted to them / every three years. However, by tho mere accident of tho Commission's findings they had now so such right. Had it«been intended to take away the right to. apply for licences, counsel argued, such intention would have been expressed.in the clearest terms. It was submitted that the machinery sections of'the Act were abundantly empowering to enable licences to be obtained. Nevor was it intended to deprive the Ashburtbn people of the right to regain their licences. Counsel maintained that would bo working a manifest injustice on them. No matter how much the township might grow, if the defendant's contention were correct, restoration conld never again bo sought, short of legislation.

The Court adjourned until to-day.