J. OUTRED'S LICENSE.

Evening Star, Issue 12899, 23 August 1906, Page 5

J. OUTRED'S LICENSE.

MOTION TO COMPEL THE COMMITTEE TO GRANT IT.

I Mr Justice Cooper sat in Banco this norning, when an application was made tor a writ of mandamus to the Waikouaiti Licensing Committee (Major Keddell, chairman, Mr A. Kilpatrick, Mr James Steven, Mr Thomas Muir, Mr William Nichol, and .he Rev. D. M'lvor) to order them to grant 1 renewal of tho accommodation lioense of Iphn Outred in respect to the Railway notel at Waianakarua. T Mr Hoskjng,. with Mr Calvert, appeared 'or the plaintiff, and Mr A. S. Adams for r-he members of the Committee other than he chairman. Mr Hosking oxplained that this matter had already been before His Honor, who was aware that- the object of it was to »mpel tho Licensing Committee for tho lyaikouaiti district to grant an accommodation license they refused. The prayer was hat the defendants should be ordered to issue the license, and there was an altcruaive notice of motion that tho application if the plaintiff to tho. defendants and all subsequent proceedings be removed into this court to bo dealt with. A statement of claim, as it were, had been added to the motion. Tho position of the case wm that Outred formerly had a publican's license for the 6amo house in 1905. Ho then converted it into an accommodation-house, and the application which came, before the meeting of the Committee this year was an application for a renewal of the accommodation license. In accordance with tho Reduction vote carried in the Waikouaiti flistrict three licenses were taken awav. find the accommodation license was on© of them. It was then determined by the Court that the Reduction clause did not »pply to accommodation licenses, so that Lhe matter went back again to the Committee. The Committee were not witaout resource. They formulated certain objections. The affidavits showed that on the B9fch of Juno four elective members of the l.bmmittee inspected the premises, and "unc to the conclusion that thev were out uf repair. At the meeting on the 11th of July evidenco was brought by the applicant to negative the objection that the promises were out of repair. No evidence at all was given in support of. the objection, and that was admitted by the statement of defence. After the whole of the evidence was given on the subject- of repairs, he supposed an astute committeeman saw that there was no evidence to support tho objection, and he. thereupon brought up the question of the five-mile lunir- at the last moment, his purpose being to pive effect to the original decision. What the Committee really did was uiis: they seemed to have had personal knowledge, founded upon personal inspection, upon the state of the premises. It was not alleged that this personal knowledge was rommunicated to the other momber'of the Committee (the chairman). The personal knowledge of _ one or two members of the Committee might be counted as tho personal knowledge of all. That, learned rounsel would show by authority, was not permissible. As regarding the five-milo limit objection, the evidence did not go further than show that two members of tho Committee themselves took steps to verify the distance, and communicated tho information to the other members of Committee. His Honor said that if the accommoda-;ion-house was within five miles of any accused public-bouse, then it was not a question of discretion at all, but a question of jurisdiction. There was the affidavit of a surveyor, who chained the road, and said the house was within the five-mile limit. Mr Hosking said his point in regard to tho five-mile limit would bo that the plaintiff had had no hearing. The plaintiff had the right of renewal, subject to objections under section 81. He had this right upon the hearing of an application. Upon that hearing all the Committee could consider was the evidenco before them, and they could not act upon their own knowledge. It was their duty to consider onlv the evidence before them. It was a concluded hearing, and at the close there was no evidence in support of the objections. Thar duty then was to give their decision, and tho only decision they could give under the Licensing Act was to grant the application. The position, learned counsel subjutted, was this: that there was a tearing >f the application under the Act, that there *-as a hearing of the objections under tlio iVct, and that evidence was given after an ldjournment to enable evidence to be obtained. In that interval the Committee themselves, if they had been able to do bo, might have secured evidence in support of their objections. The parties were heard and the hearing concluded, and the only determination the Committee could come to was a determination that the license should bo granted. What the plaintiff therefore asked for was a mandamus not to hear and determine, but to grant. Xo doubt hie learned friend would press for a rehearing. If a rehearing was granted, it would mean that the Commit tee, although they had no evidence in their possession at the time, would have the opportunity to got up evidence, and retry the whole case oil a different basis. 'lhe general principle was that a persou was not entitled to have a new trial because he max have discovered fresh evidence, unless he could show that after due diligence he could not have obtained it. Learned counsel dealt at length with the law on the question.

Mr Calvert folkirwcd at 3.15 p.m., and was addressing the Court when we went to press.