SYDENHAM LICENSES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXX, Issue 10221, 15 December 1893, Page 3

SYDENHAM LICENSES.

SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS. At the Civil sittings of the Supreme Court yesterday, before hia Honor Mr Justice Denniaton, the case of Hadfield H-T). pallant) v. Armstrong (respondent) came on for healing. Mr lioughtey anosared for the appellant and Mr Cavgiif for the respondent.

' r ? Ta3 aII appeal from the decision of the Resident Magistrate. Christchurch, in the case tried on August 8, at the Resident Magistrate’s Court, when Richard Eadfield had been charged, noon the iafotmatmn of one Armstrong, that on July 20, 1893, at the Crown Hotel, Sydenham, he didssil to W iliiam Eo we, blacksmith, Syden* ham, a quantity of intoxicating Honor, to wro, one flask of brandy, without being duiy licensed. Mv Bcethain’a decision 'upon this case had been as follows :—“Thc facts in this case are practically the same as those with, which his Honor Mr Justice Donnie ton dealt in his judgment on the application for certiorari re Charles Money. Joseph Traynor and Richard Hadfield. It seems^ clear that the certificate on which the license issued invalid, end that therefore the license is invalid also. It follows, then, that the defendant is unThe next question is, ought there to oa a conviction in the face of tbs contanfcion by the learned counsel for the defendant that the matter is before the Supreme Court, and that the order, being appealed against, is still sub judice? It may be that the certificate has not been formally quashed, but whether that is so or not, I do not think it affects the question. It seems clear on the authority of the cases quoted that if proceedings had never bean initiated in the Supreme Court affecting this license, it would have > been open to this Court to entertain tho question of the validity of the certificate and tho legality of the license which hae been granted upon it. I am, therefore, of opinion that I am not debarred oa such grounds from entering a conviction. IE this Court holds on the facts before it that the certificate and license were illegally issued, then I ought to convict. I see no possibility of arriving any other conclusion, aided, as I have been in this matter, by the judgment of his Honor Mr Justice Denniaton. If it is contended that this conviction is bad on technical grounds, it is open to tho defendant to have my decision reviewed. As this is a test case to try a right, there is no necessity to inflict a heavy fine. A fine of £5 Is will enable the defendant to appeal. Defendant will ba convicted and fined £5 Is, with costs £2 25.” Mr Loughrey applied that his Honor should adjourn the legal argument until the decision cf the Privy Council upon the licensing matter had been received. If the Magistrate’s decision was upheld in this present Court, and the decision of the Privy Council was contra, irreparable injury would be done to Mr Hadfield, as his hotel would be shut up from the date of the order of the Supreme Court until the Privy Council’s decision arrived. His business would thus be greatly damaged, and he would be almost ruined. Mr Loughrey quoted a case from 28 Weekly Reporter 284, upon 'which he based bis application to stay proceedings. He also cited Coup v. The Christchurch Finance Company, which had been triad before the Supreme Court, Christchurch. If the Court of Appeal decided against his client tho order of this Court would not ba wanted. It was possible that the decision of the Magistrate would be reversed. Mr Caygill submitted that the case should not be stayed. Hadfield had taken the license with, all it* rir-V.a' cS invalidity, and he had had notice cf the intention to challenge the license. The case of Coup v. the Finance Company did not at all apply in tho same way.

His Honor said he did nos intend to give a decision off-hand. Ha could hear the argument now but need not give his decision. Thera was a great deal to ba said in favour of the application. The appellant now held the license, which oa the face of it was good, and purported to come from a competent licensing authority. That license was impeached, and the Court of Appeal had technically upheld .the decision that it should be called in and cancelled. Only, however, on the ground that the Court was divided, and on a point that had arisen since his (his Honor's) judgment. Ha had had no opportunity of pronouncing an opinion on the point on which tho Court cf Appeal had differed. The Judges had differed, oni now it was to be decided by another tribunal. It was obviously possible, while the main question was being decided, to have collateral proceedings taken. Aft this stage of the proceedings ho wonld not give any decision, but would hear the argument of counsel, reserving the right to give effect, practically, to tho application of Mr Loughrey. ■Mr Loughrey opened his argument, and submitted that the Magistrate should not have entered into any question of the jurisdiction of tho committee. That was a matter for the Supreme Court. Until tha license was absolutely quashed, Hadfield had a right to sell, while tha magistrate had held that because the license had been improperly granted, the sale of liquor under it was illicit. Mr Loughrey cited cases to show that liquor could be sold up to the data of the quashing of tha license. He submitted that the Licensing Committee had been a competent body, and hud granted a good license, and that the Magistrate had acted without statutory power. His Honor pointed out, in course of the argument, that even if the Supreme Court had held that tbo certificate was right, a Magistrate, if ha chose, could keep oa fining a. man 40?, and he would have no redress, as he could not appeal. This put tha argument into a very strong light. Mr Loughrey cited cases in support of his contention that the Magistrate could not go into the question of the validity oil tho license.

Mr Caygill submitted that tha Magistrate had that power, and cited the judgment of the Chief Justice in Roadie's licensing case. His Honor said that tha subject matter of that action differed from that of the present ona. These the license had been brought up to ba quashed. Mr Caygill submitted that the Chief Justice had touched upon the proaeat point in tha course of his judgment. Ho would quote cases to show that the validity of licensts coaid be questioned and tested upon information. He had one case regarding an auction license where the certificate bad been tested under information. He cited 4, Eerlston and Norman, 254; Regina v. tha Justice of tho Court, 12 Law Report?, Ireland, 167; 7 Victorian Law Reports,, pages 194-199, Cases at Law; and” submitted that the validity of a license could ba tested on information.

His Honor asked if tha magistrate bad a right to go behind the license. How far did Mr Caygill carry his argument concerning tha jurisdiction of a magistrate? Could he investigate all and everything in connection with tho granting of the license and the proceedings ot the Licensing Bench Mr Caygill said he contended that a magistrate could consider the actions o£ a Licensing Bench upon an information respecting a license. His Honor said he did not cay it wss so. but it seemed peculiar that two justices or a magistrate could set right the actions or a tribunal which was as high aa themselves at all events. Of course tho Supremo Court coaid got right the actions of any othr-r tribunal, that bomg ita very office. He would reserve judgment, and consider the authorities quoted by counsel. [Ceyliafio Kincaid's GT,C.~. AdvtJ