APPEAL COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXVII, Issue 9718, 6 May 1892, Page 5

APPEAL COURT.

THE SYDENHAM LICENSING CASE. {Tee Pehss Association.! ■WELLINGTON, Mat 5. The Appeal Court visits occupied to-dsy with. Isitt and others (appellants) v. Taylor and others (respondents), the Sydenham licensing case. This is &n appeal from an order made by his Honor Mr Justice Denniston at Christchurch, on June 9, IS9I. Plaintiffs, who represent the publicans at Sydenham, complained that the Sydenham Licensing Committee, prior to their election, “ unlawfully and wilfully concerted, agreed and promised, each with the others and other of them, and with the members of a certain Society known as the Sydenham Prohibition League,” and others who voted at the election, to the effect that they, if elected, would pledge themselves to close the whole of the drinking bars in the district, and would grant no publicans’ licenses or renewals thereof. Plaintiffs, in the Court below sought to unseat the Committee on the ground of irregularity in the election, Tho decision of Mr Justice Denniaton on this point was for the Committee, and this, it is underatoood, is not appealed against. Plaintiffs further aiked (1) That the Committee be prohibited by tho Supreme Court from exercising any jurisdiction with reference to applications for licensee; (3) For an injunction restraining tho Committee from sitting, and (3) That applications for licenses be removed by certiorari into tho Supremo Court, and be determined by that Court, or some person appointed by it, to the end that plaintiffs might have moro euro and speedy justice.” The order of Mr Justice Denniston, purported to restrain the defendants (the Committee) from refusing the licenses cf the premises of plaintiffs "on such ground only that the licensing of such promises is not required by a majority of the ratepayers and adult male and female residents of the Sydenham Licensing district, and directed too defendants that “.in considering whether the licensing of euc’x premises is required in the neighbourhood of such premises,” they were to consider “whether such premises are required according to the reasonable waats of such of the residents as may desire to purchase liquor.” From this order the appellants (the Committee) now appealed. Sir Kobeit B: out and Mr Cavgill appeared for tho appellants, and Messrs J. J?. Fisher, H. D. Hell aad G. Harper for the respondents.

The appellants’ counsel relied ou tbo following points ; will not lie until the inferior tribunal has actually committed some excess of ;juri 3dictir):, ..;:d tho respondents were consepremature in their proceedings, and i have waited until the Committee had done gome unlawful act. A Court cannot direct an interior tribunal how to act, before that tribunal has itself decided. Moreover, if a prohibition was issued there could bs 20 licensee, for there

is no otlier tribunal empowered to issue them. (2) That a writ of certiorari will not lie to bring up an application for hearing, and the Court has no power to determine the question itself, or to appoint an officer to do so. (3) That as tho Committee is a judicial body, an injunction will not lie against it. Parties only can be enjoined. (4) That if against their contention tho Court may advise _ the Committee how to act, their advice given in the order was wrong and at variance with Sub-section 3 of Section 63 of “ The Licensing Act, ISSI.” (5) That the order ignored the fact that the principle of election by the popular vote was the central principle of the Licensing Act. _ (6) That bias, not coupled with pecuniary interest or other corrupt motive, is no disqualification under the Act, and that the people have tho right to elect a Committee pledged on public grounds in a certain direction, and that the Committee has power so to act. (7) That a far greater right to the public ia given by the New Zealand Act, to_ appear and object at licensing meetings, than in England, where only persons immediately aggrieved have this right, (8) That the proper mode of removing one or all of the members of a Licensing Committee considered unfit to act, is given by Section 59 of the “Triennial Licensing Committees Act, 1889,” which authorises the Governor without cause assigned to remove members and to fill up vacancies thus occurring, (9) A vast number of authorities were cited, including the wellknown cases of Hamilton v. Faber (Army and Navy Hotel case) Sharpe v. Wakefield (the House of Lords case) and a recent case at Wanganui. The Court adjourned till 10.30 to-morrow morning, when counsel for the respondents will be heard.