THE BLENHEIM LICENSING CASE.

Marlborough Express, Volume XXXVI, Issue 149, 28 June 1902, Page 2

THE BLENHEIM LICENSING CASE.

HEARING OF APPEAL AT

WELLINGTON.

Press .Association. Electric Telegraph. Copyright.

Wellington, June 27.

The Chief Justice sat with Judges Denniston and Edwards to-day to hear legal argument on the motion of James Penney, publican, and William Carr, ironmonger, for a writ of certiorari to compel the Wairau Licensing Committee to quash the new license granted last month to the Central Hotel, Blenheim, with William Reader as licensee.

A discussion took place as to the adraissibility of certain affidavits filed since the day fixed, and the Court reserved decision on the point.

Mr Gully said that there were two grounds for the motion : (1) That there was predetermination and bias on the part of Messrs Horton and H. M. Reader, two members of the Committee, or of either; and (2) that section 38 of the Licensing Act had nob been complied with or was not complied with at the time the license was granted on the 4th of June, when the Committee granted the license without any adjournment. The point as to nonsufuciency of accommodation at the hotel, apart from its being a substantative ground for certiorari, was one of the elements to prove that the decision was based on bias and predetermination. There were three classes of cases in which the Courts had held decisions to be bad on the question of bias: (1) Pecuniary bias, which was conclusive; (2) direct proof of bias ; and (3) where, as in this case, there was a real likelihood of bias.

The right of the movers to proceed with this motion was admitted.

The question of waiver by the objectors was raised, and Mr Skerret said that he would submit that, with regard to H. M. Reader, there was an express waiver of any disqualification arising from his relationship to the applicant. There was no objection to his sitting. As to Mr Horton, he did not suggest that there was a waiver.

Mr Skerretfc, in support of the license, argued that the question of qualification was distinctly precluded by section 12 of the Act.

The Chief Justice.*— Supposing a man sat on the Licensing Committee when the application for the license was being made by himself and by his vote the license was granted, could you do nothing ?

Mr Skerrett—No doubt that is the outcome of my argument. Counsel went on to quote several cases from English authorities to show that Mr Reader's mere presence on the Bench would not invalidate proceedings of the Committee.

He was so engaged when the Court adjourned.