J. OUTRED’S LICENSE.

Evening Star, Issue 12900, 24 August 1906, Page 7

J. OUTRED’S LICENSE.

Bos Honor Mr Justice Cooper concluded ffie hearing yesterday afternoon of the application for a mandamus to order the Waikouaili Licensing Committee to grant a renewal of the accommodation license to John Outred in respect to the Railway Hotel, Waianakaruiu Mr A- S. Adams, who appeared for the Committee, dealt with the question of the limit. Ho submitted first that section 52 limited the jurisdiction of , a licensing committee ; second, that the jurisdiction of any inferior tribunal was nerir presumed, but must be proved; third, that there must he evidence upon the face of the proceedings before an inferior tribunal of facts which would support jurisdiction; fourth, that the Committee definitely raised an objection that, in their opinion, the license was within the five-mile limit. He submitted that, upon the question imported in that form, it became the duty of the applicant to satisfy the Committee the house was outside it. The Committee had offered ail adjournment, which they were ■ l ° t , bo^ nd to <!<?• That was offered in order that the appneant might bring evidence upon that very point. If -the Committee coma act without calling evidence with retard to one class of objection, there was no ground wny the Committee should not to the same without evidence upon other classes of objection. The repairs and the necessity for the place in the neighborhood were matters based upon fact. onor: Roes not your argument go to the extent that if premises arc out of repair, and the Committee say thev are, that there is no remedy at all? Mr Adams : Yes, certainly. His Honor : And supposing they do riot even go to the premises. Suppose thev sav without looking at the premises they are orit of repair, a mandamus caunot issue. I wo of tho Committee had no knowledge except from the others. Continuing, H,: Honor said upon the question of fact ns the matter was before tho Committee the only evidence which was on oatli was that tbe premises were in good repair. The Committee had acted on their own knowledge, and it was a. question of law whether a committee were entitled to act upon their own knowledge when there was no B wqrn evidence to support tho knowledge which they had obtained. If a committee were entitled to act upon their own knowledge the plaintiff could not succeed; if not, then he would not express any opinion as to whether tho premises were out of repair or not, but would remit the matter back to the Committee to determine the application. Mr Adams said the Committee should not be asked at any such inquiry before them to dismiss from their minds the knowledge they had through their own inspection of the premises : and the Court should not say that the Committee, having acted upon their own knowledge of the circumstances, were wrong, and should have granted tho license because other persons might have made a, statement with which they did not agree, and which was opposed to their own views. In doing this the Court would have to say the Committee were hound to accept testimony they did not create, and grant the license, and that the Committee were bound to hold tlio place was m repair though they did not believe it, because witnesses said it, was in repair.

, Y r Hosldng having replied, His Honor intimated that he would take time to con lider his decision.