WHOLESALE LICENSE GRANTED.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLV, Issue 57, 8 March 1911, Page 3

WHOLESALE LICENSE GRANTED.

TO HOLDER OF BOTTLE

LICENSE.

The most important business at the quarterly meeting of the- Nelson Licensing Committee, held on Monday (reports Th© Colonist) was the application by Joshua Shields (tho holder of a bottle license) for a wholesale license There were, present: Messrs J. S. Evans, S.M. (chaiiwnan), H. Atmore, P. Best, N. A. McLaren, \l. Watson, and T. Pettit. Mr Harloy, who appeared for applicant, stated that under the Act bottle licenses were to be done away with. The applicant, who had been in businejss ir. Nelson for many years, had a considerable stock, and he wished to carry on by converting the bottle license into a. wholesale license. In reply to the chairman, Mr Barley said that in Westport and other places bottle and wholesale licenses were held by one licensee. The Chairman: Is this an increase of heen«es<r J

Mr Harley said it was permissible to grant these licenses. The Court of Appeal had held that the increase did not apply to wholesale licenses. The Act only dealt with selling liquor in hotels.

The Chairman said the applicart v;as entitled to apply. Th^e police report was to the effect that applicant liiid always conducted liis business in a proper manner. It was a, question for the Committee to say whether the license should be granted. In reply to Mr McLaren, the chairman said there was nothing in the Act to prevent a licensee from holding two licenses.

Mr Best moved that the application be granted. He had known the applicant for many years, and he had always conducted his business well. It would be a great hardship to take his license away. Mr Atmore seconded the motion.

Mr McLaren said it was against the spirit of the Act for a person to hold two licenses. He did not see that the community required more provision for wholesale licenses.

Mr Watson .said that as applicant previously held a bottle license, a wholesale license was distinctly a new license.

Mr Fettit also contended that it was a new license As it was an increase of licenses he would vote against the application.

.The Chairman said that it had been decided that it did not mean an increase. The motion was then put, and carried on th© casting vote of the chairman. Ay«s. Messrs Atmore, Best, and the Chairman. Noes: Messrs McLaren. Watson, and Pettit. The Chairman said that he recog-nised-that a majority of the elective members were against granting th« application, but there would be no increase in the number of licenses existing after June next. If there had been an increase in the existing stat? of things he would have considered it his duty to vote against it. It was purely a technical question. The applicant had been carrying on business | under a bottle license for years, and there was no difference in the status of the applicant.