SYDENHAM LICENSES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXVII, Issue 9761, 25 June 1892, Page 3

SYDENHAM LICENSES.

PEOCEE DINGS TO BE TAKEN IN THE SUPREME COURT. Yesterday afternoon, Mr J. A. Caygill, solicitor for the Sydenham Licensing Committee, accepted service of the following documents relating to proceedings which will be taken in the Supreme Court in connection with the Sydenham licensing question. The case is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court In Banco, before hia Honor Mr Justice Denniston, on Wednesday next, June 29, at eleven o’clock in the forenoon. THE CLUB HOTEL. “ In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Canterbury District, and in the matter of ‘The Licensing Act, 1881/ and the amendments thereof, and in the matter of the Licensing Committee for the Borough of Sydenham, and in the matter of an application by Alfred John Lawrence, of Sydenham, hotelkeeper, for the renewal of the publican’s license held by him in respect of the Club Hotel, in the said district of Sydenham.—Take notice that on Wednesday, the 29th day of June instant, at eleven o’clock in the forenoon, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, counsel on behalf of the abovenamed Alfred John Lawrence will move this honourable Court for an order directing

" 1. That a writ of certiorari do issue to remove into this honourable Court the application to the Licensing Committee for District of Sydenham by the above-named Alfred John Lawrence for a renewal of a publican’s license in respect of his hotel, known as the Club Hotel, and the decision of the said Committee thereon, and all proceedings relating thereto, in order that this honourable Court may further cause to be done thereupon what of right the Court shall see fit upon the grounds s—“1. That the application made by the said Alfred John Lawrence to the said Committee on June 8 for a renewal of his license for his said hotel was not considered by the members of the said Committee other than William White, one of the members of the said Committee, honestly, fairly and disinterestedly, and in accordance with law, but, on the conttary, the members of the said Committee other than the said William White, in refusing to grant a renewal of the said license, did so in performance of a pledge given by them prior to their election as members of the said Committee, that if they were so elected they would close all the hotels m Che district. By reason of their bias and pie j udice against the said application by the said Alfred John Lawrence, the members of the said Committee, other chan the said William White, were not able, and did not bring to the consideration of the said application, a fair, impartial and judicial discretion. “2. That upon the hearing of the application of Che said Alfred John Lawrence by the said Committee, lo matters were alleged or proved against the said application which would allow or justify the said Committee in refusing the said application. “ 3. Upon the further grounds appearing in and by the affidavit of the said Alfred John Lawrence filed herein this day. Dated this 24th day of June, 1892. “ T. W. Stringer, “ Solicitor for the said “ Alfred John Lawrence.” The following is the statement of claim : “Alfred John Lawrence, plaintiff, and Leonard Monk Isitt, Robert Beattie, John Hopper, George John Smith and William White, defendants. The plaintiff says : (1) That he is the lessee of the hotel and premises situated within the Licensing District of Sydenham, and known as the Club Hotel, and is the holder of a publican’s license issued under • The Licensing Act, 1881/ and the amendments thereof, in respect of the said hotel and premises. (2) The defendants are the Licensing Comm.ttee lor the said Licensing District of Sydenham. (3) That the said license expires on June 30, 1892. (4) That the plaintiff, in manner required by the said Licensing Act, duly gave notice of his desire to obtain, and that he would, at the then next licensing meeting of the Licensing Committee for the said Licensing District of Sydenham, apply tor a certificate authorising the renewal or the said license for the said hotel and premises. (6) That the said Licensing Committee held their annual meeting at the Borough Council office, Sydenham, on the Bth bay of June instant, at which the beforementioned application of the plaintiff duly came on to be heard and determined. (6) That at such meeting the defendants purported to hear and determine the said application of the plaintiff, and defused to grant a certificate for the renewal of the said license for the said hotel and premises. (7) The decision of the said Committee was, in fact, the decision of the majority thereof consisting of the defendants Leonard Monk Isitt, Robert Beattie, John Hopper and George John Smith, the said William White dissenting therefrom, and being joined in this action for conformity only. (8) That in hearing and determining the application of the plaintiff as before-mentioned, the defendants Leonard Monk Isitt, Robert Beattie, John Hopper and George John Smith did not act according to law, or according to the rules of reason and justice ; but, on the contrary, they were prejudiced ard biassed against the said application, and acted upon a pre-de!erauuat ou to refuse, and tliey did refuse all applications for the renewals of licenses in the sa d licensing district of Sydenham. The plaintiff, therefore, pray i (1) That thu honourable Court will order that the said application of the ilaiv't'ff, and all proceedings rbeteon, asd connected therewith, be removed mco this honourable Court, and there be dealt with as this honourable Com t sliii.il seem lit. (2) Tha t the Licens-ng Committee for the district of fcydoaiaam may bo ordered by this honourable Court to bear and determine the said application, of Ihe plaintiff, according to law. (3) That the defendants, Leonard Monk Isitt, Robert Beattie, John

Hopper and George John Smith may be prohibited from dealing with the said application, on the ground that they have, by their bias and prejudice against the plaintiff, disqualified themselves from so acting. (4) That the plaintiff may have such further or other relief in the premises as to this honourable Court may seem proper.” " I, Alfred John Lawrence, of Sydenham, hotelkeeper, make oath and say that so much of the foregoing statement of claim as relates to my own acts and deeds is true, and so much thereof as relates to the acts and deeds of any other person I believe to be true.

“ A. J. Lawrence.” <r Sworn at Christchurch this 24th day of Juno, 1892, before me, James C. Martin, A solicitor of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The following affidavit has been sworn "In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Canterbury District. Between Alfred John Lawrence, plaintiff, and Leonard Monk laitt, Robert Beattie, John Hopper, George John Smith and* William White, defendants. " I, Alfred John Lawrence, of Sydenham, in the said district, hotelkeeper, do swear : (1) That I am the lessee of the hotel and premises situate within the Licensing District of Sydenham, known as the Club Hotel, and the holder of a publican’s license issued under " The Licensing Act, 1881,” and the amendments thereof in respect of the said hotel and premises. (2) That the defendants are the Licensing Committee for the said Licensing District of Sydenham. (3) That the said license expires on June 30, 1892. (4) That I did in manner required by the said Licensing Acts, duly give notice of my desire to obtain, and that I would at the then next licensing meeting of the Licensing Committee for the said Licensing District of Sydenham, apply for a certificate authorising the renewal of my said license. (5) That the said Licensing Committee held their annual licensing meeting at the Borough Council office, Sydenham, on June 8, at which meeting my said application came on to be heard and determined. (6) That at such last-mentioned meeting the defendants purported to hear and determine my said application, and refused to grant a certificate for the renewal of the said license. (7) That I am advised, and believe, that in hearing and determining my said application the defendants, except the said William White, did not act according to law or to the rules of reason and justice, but that, on the contrary, they were prejudiced and biassed against the said application, and acted upon a predetermination to refuse, and they did ref nee all applications for the renewal of licenses in said Licensing District of Sydenham. (8) That all the defendants (with the exception of the defendant William White) were elected as members of the said Licensing Committee at an election held in the mouth of April, 1891. (9) That the defendants, except the said William White, were at the time of the said election, and I believe still are, members of tbe Sydenham Prohibition League. (10) The said Sydenham Prohibition League was formed and is maintained for the purpose of introducing the principles of prohibition into Sydenham and elsewhere. The principles of prohibition are: (1) The refusal of all licenses and certificates for licenses for the sale of wine, beer, spirits and other fermented liquors ; (2) the prohibition of the sale of all wines, beers, spirits and otner fermented liquors; (3) the closing of all hotels and'bars at present licensed for the sale of wines, beers, spirits and other fermented liquors without compensation to the owners or licensees, and without reference to the wishes or requirements of any class of the community other than the prohibitionists. (11) That the defendants, except the said William White, distinctly pledged themselves that if elected they would refuse every application for a license or renewal of a license, and would close all the hotels within the said Licensing District. (12) That at the time of the annual licensing meeting of the said Licensing Committee, held in the month of June, 1891, there were then, and had been for some years previously, in force in the said Licensing District eight publicans* licenses. (13) That in the month of May. 1891, the holders of the said eight licenses instituted proceedings against the defendants in this honourable Court in respect to the manner in which they had expressed their determination to deal with the applications for renewals of the beforementioned licenses, and judgment on the said proceedings was pronounced by this honourable Court on or about the ninth day of June, 1891. (14) That at the meeting of the said Committee held in the month of June, 1891, the said Licensing Committee refused five of the applications for renewals of these licenses, and granted the remaining three applications, of which one was that of this deponent. (15) That the judgment of this honourable Court beforementioned was on or about the month of May last, varied by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. (16) That I am advised and believe that the defendants regard the variation of the said judgment of this honourable Court by the said Court of Appeal, as enabling them to disregard the principles upon which they should consider applications for renewals of licenses as enunciated in the judgment of this honourable Court, and to carry into effect the pledges given by them as beforementioned, viz., to refuse all renewals of licenses, and to close all the public-houses in Sydenham. (17) That the boundaries of the Licensing District of Sydenham are co-fcerminous with those of the Borough of Sydenham, which Borough, according to tbe official returns of the census taken in 1891, has a papulation of 9680. (18) That all the conditions affecting the question as to the necessity or otherwise of all or any of the licensed houses in the district of Sydenham are practically the same now as they were in June, 1891. (19) That at the said meeting of the Committee, held at the ' Sydenham Borough Council Chambers on the morning of June 11 last, when the Chairman of the Licensing Committee for the Licensing District of Sydenham gave the decision of the Committee with regard to tbe various applications for renewal of publicans’ licenses that were before the Committee, before dealing with the various applications in detail, che said Chairman stated: as follows:—Before giving our decisions on the applications for licenses before us, as tbe circumstances under which we act are somewhat unusual, we deem it desirable to indicate plainly upon what basis we have proceeded. Elected as a Prohibition Committee, and with the belief that under certain conditions, and after careful consideration, the Licensing Act empowered us to refuse all licenses in the district if we so decided, we find ourselves restrained from such action by Mr Justice Denniaton’s interpretation of the Act, and an erder issued by the Supreme Court commanding us to proceed in accordance therewith. As lawabiding citizens, we feel that we have no option other than obedience to this order until such time as his Honor’s opinion is either reversed or confirmed by the Court of Appeal. The two points in the order to which we have to give effect are - First, that we ate not to refuse the licenses applied for, or any of them, on the ground only that the licensing of such premises, or any of them, is not required by the majority of the ratepayers and adult male and female residents of the Sydenham Licensing District. Secondly, that in considering whether the licensing of such premises, or any of them, is required in the neighbourhood of such premises, we shall consider whether such licences are required according to the reasonable wants of such of the residents as may desire to purchase liquor. We have striven to act in recognition of these direc ions, but it teems to ua that his Honor does not direct us to ignore altogether the desire of this community that ne excessive drinking facilities should exist, in their midst, and does not direct us to do more than allow provision for meeting the reasonable requirements of such of the residents as desire to purchase liquor. Where, therefore, hotels are iu close proximity to other hotels, that are either in the district or on the borders thereof * { we have taken this fact, into consideration

in dealing with the various applications. " A. J. Lawrence.” " Sworn at Christchurch this 24th day of June, 1892, before me, “James C. Martin, a solicitor of tho Supreme Court of New Zealand.” THE LANCASTER PARK AND WALTKAK ASMS HOTELS, Similar documents have been filed in ( connection with the Waltham Arms Hotel by Mr Deacon, and Messrs Garrick and Co. have been instructed to take similar action on behalf of the Lancaster Park Hotel.