LICENSE REFUSED.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 4990, 21 June 1926, Page 2

LICENSE REFUSED.

CASE OF WAITOA HOTEL.

PRONO UNCEMENT Of COMMITTEE.

In connection with the applications for publico,ns’ licenses to the Ohinomuri Licensing Committee few have evoked keener interest than the application for the Waitoa Hotel at Waitoa.

Mr H. O. Cooney (Te Puke) appeared for the applicant, and his and other evidence was heard by the committee at its sitting at Paeroa on June 2. There was also tip .added interest by the fact that, a largely signed memorial opposing the application wtts lodged. This memorial, together with a lesser signed one, was thrown out by the Committee at its first sitting. After hearing the evidence the Committee adjourned the application. At the sitting on Friday the following pronouncement w.us made by the Committee :—

"The applicant, Mary Blackley Montgomery, is a widow’. Prior to the poll of 1908 she and her husband held licenses at different times at Owharoa, Waikino, and Karangahake, respectively, over a number of years. At the time no-license was carried in 1908 she was the owner in her own right of licensed premises atKarangahake known a.s the Tramway Hotel. Some time subsequently to the poll the premises were destroyed by tireTire applicant continued to hold the site, which was a business site license issued under the Mining Act, until the year 1921, when it was surrendered. The applicant, lias acquired a section at Waitoa, at the other end of the district, and now proposes to erect premises to the satisfaction of the Committee. A majority of tire Committee has held, on the legal construction of the sub-section, that this applicant comes within the class of preferential applicants. Another majority of the Committee has decided to refuse the application. The reasons of that majority are based upon the following grounds : — "The, majority of the Committee hold that, notwithstanding the restriction of their powers and discretion, by the removal of section 193 of the principal Act, they have an inherent power and discretion to refuse the grant of any particular application for a. license. They deny that aiiy applicant—even a preferential applicant—has the right to say where his or her particular licensed premises are to be situated in defiance of tiie. Committee. 'The majority point out that to hold that the applicant had that right would be to nullify the functions of a licensing committee. The majority desire to make it clear that their refusal is not based upon any consideration as to the noii-neces-sity for licensed premises in that particular neighbourhood, but upon their inherent, power to say what licenses shall or shall not be granted in the district.

“It has keen urged by counsel for the applicant that a refusal of this application by the Committee would condemn this particular township or portion of the district to continue, under no-license, and that the Committee has no right to do so in view of the poll. The answer of. the majority is that this township never did have a. license, even prior to 1908, and that the refusal of any licensing committee to grant a particular license may very often have the effect, incidentally, of condeimning at ownship or portion of a district t.o continue without a licensed public house. “It is clear, we think, that the Committee is vested with some discretion, notwithstanding the restriction of that discretion by the removal of Section 103 of the principal Act. The difference of opinion avisos a.s to tile degree of discretion remaining to tile Committee ini the case of preferential applicants. Some discretion is undoubtedly implied by section 11, sub-section 3, of the Amendment Act of 1910, which provides thi’.t while the Committee must grant, at least (in this instance) seven publicans’ licenses in tile district, it may grant up to fifteen.”

In view (if the decision, Mr Cooney applied under section 92 f-.- an adjournment of tlic application for the specified seven days at least. He pointed out that there had been no evidence of objection, the committee had not sta.ted the nature of any objection, and had taken the objection on its own motion. ?f refusal of the license had been founded on an objection the case would have been different, but there had. been no evidence of objection before, the Court. In view of such facts the Committee was not in a position to give a final decision. The memorial against the license had been dismissed by the Court, and counsel therefore approached the Bench with an application! without diffidence or objection. It had been indicated that the majority off the committee had ruled that tlie applicant wa,s entitled to preference. If that was conceded, then the functions of the Committee had become circumscribed, and it could only act under section 109. If t.bqt section was to be relied upon, the statutory notice of seven days should be given and counsel afforded the opportunity to reply. Mr Cooney specifically asked for a statement from the Committee of the real ’nature of its objection to the application. After a short deliberation the chairman (Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M.) said that the Committee had. refused and disposed of the application.

Mr Cooney intimated that hq intended to take, the application to a higher Court. Me therefore applied under section 92 for an adjournment, which had been refused, and lie now asked for a statement in writing of tlie grounds on which the. Committee refused the license. He wished to emphasise that he had not waived his right to object to the personnel of tlie Committee. A definite objection was taken to two members, Messrs W. J. Towers and W. Marshall, on the grounds that they were working on hotels in Paeroa which were the subjects of applications. There was also the question of preference connecting all applications before the Court. Mr Cooney sa,id that he also objected to Mr F. W. Walters sitting oil tlie Committee on the grounds that

lie had taken an active part in the preparation of a, petition which had been lodged with the Court, and also that Mr Walters had given a definite election pledge that he would oppose, the granting of a license for Waitoti,.