LICENSE FOR TANEATUA.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 4904, 25 June 1918, Page 3

LICENSE FOR TANEATUA.

INTERESTING REQUEST AT

OPOTIKI

REAL FACTS AS TO THE POSITION.

There will be much interest throughout the Dominion "in connection with the sequel to a request that came before the Bay of Plenty Licensing Committee last week. Briefly' the position is that there is an hotel in the Taupo a.Vea which is not reckoned a very good paying proposition. On the other hand, Taneatua, which is in the same licensing district, is a rising community with a large Maori population in the adjacent Waimana country. The idea of the applicants *was obviously that the Committee should grant an adjournment in order that the Ateamuri license should he allowed to lapse owincj to the non-payment of fees, and that, upon resumption 'at a date to be fixed, it would then he competent for the Committee to grant an accommodation license for Taneatua.

Mr Elliott, in opening for the applicants, said that licensing committees were unique amongst tribunals in New Zealand. The bench—with the exception, of course, of the magistrate—were the only elected! judges in New Zealand. Mr Elliott declared that the act gave members power to express opinions relating to any matter outside, and also that it was well known that members were elected on tickets. In support of the application for adjournment and its relation to thej Taneatua application, Mr Elliott quoted Appeal Court cases ex par„te Goukroger and Wagstaffe v. O’Donnell. The following statement by Mr Elliott as the outcome of his argumeht was noted 1 by tho Bench at the request of Mr Mays: “That this Committee has ample power, by adjournment to a certain date — at which it may be found that a lapse has occurred in an accommodation license by- reason of non-pay-ment of fees —to grant a new accommodation license, thereby restoring the number of accommodation license to that at present existing.” His Worship: You ask that wo should adjourn to a certain date in order to see?—Mr Elliott: ' Yes. His Worship: But wo cannot entertain the application now. can we? —Mr Elliott: No, but Task that we adjourn m order to see if there is a vacancy.

Mr Chalmers, on behalf of Tnnentua residents and others, said that the contention of Mr Elliott was that the Court should adjourn the sitting in case a vacancy might occur which would give his side a chance to make an application. Mr Selwvn Mays, of Auckland, (for the police) said that the point at issue was probably the most important that a licensing committee had had to deal with for some years. He had gone into the matter most carefully and seriously. There was a clear line of distinction between this case and the cases quoted by Mr Eliott. There was not one member of the Committee who had any judicial knowledge that any license granted that day 7 would lapse. It would be wrong for anybody to suggest that there would be a lapse. It the majority of the Committee resolve to grant the adjournment solely for the purpose of dropping the license, that majority must take the consequences. They will have exceeded their powers and the case must go before the Supreme Court.” Mr Crawford: I must object to this threatening attitude. His Worship: It’s all right Mr Crawford.

Mr Mays: I have shown that there is absolutely no merit but if the Committee fly in the face of this His Worship : You mean that it is not a question of whether the Committee will or will not grant the adjournment, but that they cannot. Mr Mays : Yes. There _ must always be some show of merit. but m this case there is none. We know there will be a lapse Mr Crawford: I’m jiggered if I do. His Worship: Now we cannot all be speaking; we will consider that when we retire. ' Upon the return of the Committee, after retirement, the chairman announced that the adjournment had been granted. Those in favor ot the adjournment were Messrs Hogg, Crawford, Henderson and Jackson, and those against were Mr Brown and himself. , . , c , • Mr Mays asked for costs, but after discussion the chairman stated that the Commieett’s decision was that, even assuming that it had power to grant costs, costs would not be granted.