RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 15, 8 December 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE 'S COURT.

.. ' ....; -. ■■"■ FOXTQN; \.;V; ':.. . V ' Wednesday, Dec. sth, -187^." (Before R. Ward Esq., 8.M.,) Purcell r: Loudon, breach of the Foxton Local Board bye Jaws. ThrowingTabbishin the public streets of Poxton. Fine Is and costs 9s. '■-. * s ssssb- > CIVIL CASEB. V >R. Mansfield T.T:Bevan, Claim £17 15s. Case adjourned' until 19th inst., J. Symons y. T. Atkinson, Claim £20 . 3s. Judgement by default for amount claimed with 26s costs. • ■■♦"' ; v - LICENSING COUBT V > ' The quarterly Licensing Court was held at noon. Commissioners present : J. T. Stewart, Esq., J.P.; E. S. T/hynne, Esq., J.P. ; J>r. Jiockstrow, j. P. ; 11. Ward, Esq., 8.M., (chairman.) Edward John Baraet£ applied for a license for the Foxton Family Hotel: on being questioned, stated '-that he was the owner of the house, having taken a lease of it with a purchasing clause. Since the Bth October he had opened the house as a private Boarding m?ese and it had been kept open ever^rance^ and he had during that time about. fifty : persons staying m it. He had now four permanent boarders and he had had females and children staying m the house. Out of the fifty who had bee n staying with him, some remained a week ; all had expressed themselves well satis- ~ s fied; - . / Mr McLean, who appeared for the applicant, said under the provisions of section 28, sub-section 7, of " The Licensing Act, 1874," I again apply to this Court for a license to be granted to the Foxton Family Hotel. The necessary notice has been filed m proper time with the Clerk of the Court, and I think I am safe m saying that every member Of the Courtis personally . aware of the fitness , of the Jfctquse for the purposes of a large and commodious hotel, and that it has been furnished throughout with a due regard to comfort. The Court ihas already intimated through its Chairman that there is no objection whatever to the applicant. A document has been filed of the nature of a memorial objecting to or protesting ■ | against the issue of a third license m tMs town. ItVis signed by two minif- ..■'- ters of religion, Mr Hulke,"the Government Schoolmaster, one storekeeper, -. and two of Mr London's assistants, six m all : however, as by section 23 of the Act of -|1873 such a memorial, if I may so call it, is altogether informal, it cannot be recißived by the Court, and not only so, but the Court is bound to give ; its decision (by section 24) as though no such document had been presented to it. Where the law prescribes a cer-^ tain course of action that course must be adhered toy nor must the unsuccessful preparers of a protest of, this kind. , be surprised at its fate, for tiie law will not put up with ignorance on the . part of those who seek to set it in,mo- j tion. The application made on behalf B of this house m September last was re- X fused after a withdmwal "of nearly half !x an hour by the Court, on the grounds ;

that there was no necessity for another licensed house m the district at the then present time. This refusal was grounded on section No. 22 of the Act of 1873, which says that the Court shall not be compelled to grant any license merely because the requirements of the Act have been complied with, unless it shall be of opinion that there is a. necessity for it. The Court will, I am sure, bear with me when I say that m my opinion there is a necessity m the present case, a higher necessity than any which springs out of the Act, namely the necessity for doing right. It is within the knowledge of the Court that the very large expenditure which has been incurred m connection with this house was so incurred m consequence of a virtual promise made by the Court to a former lessee of the hotel, to the effect that if the house were enlarged and put m thorough order and repair a license would be granted to it and this was said to the man whose license had just been cancelled. In consequence of this a* sum of over £1000 has been expended upon the building and furniture,, and I now say that there is a necessity— that a necessity is laid upon the conscience of the Court, to grant a license to JMj Barnett to-day. The Act says the Court "shall not be compelled;" but there is a large area of discretion between that and refusing it altogether. 3ut even taking an Act of Parliament view of the word.," necessity," I think I hajj^JMped to, the Court that there is aswppient necessity within the meaning of the Act m question for the granting "of this license. So far as the licensing laws indicate to us how to place the : opinion of, the community m these matters before the Court, we nave complied with them. I present a memorial signed by 111 persons resident m and around Foxton and frequenting its port, while a counter petition is endeavoured to be presented signed after a canvass by only six-persons. Mr Barnett has stated that he opened the house on the Bth of October last as a private boarding house, and that between that date and the present he has accommodated between 40 and 50 boarders 4 of whom are permanent and the remainder have stopped with him for 1 periods varying from one day to a week. The Court will also remember that on^the last annual licensing day, after the application for this house had been refused, another application was granted, accompanied „by a severe reprimand which m itself is evidence of a necessity for another house. But the section upon which I am at present speaking is m no wise directory to the Court. It does not say that the Court shall not grant a particular license tinder given circumstances, but only 1 that it shall not be compelled to do so. Were I able fully to convince' the Court of the "necessity," the Court would then be compelled (under the , section) to grant this license. I only ask the * Court > to compel itself, and thereby do an act of common justice. The Court is aware of its own knowledge that during its present session the House of Representative by vote adopted* the principle .of compensation to owners of hotels whose licenses-might Jbe cancelled through the operation of the Local Option Bill m the event of its becoming law. Is it reasonable then to suppose that it was the intention of the Legislature to confer upon licensing Courts powers such- as this Court has been using at its, three last sittings, namely, of closing and keeping closed, after the offender has paid the penalty of his fault, a large and costly house, aid thereby depriving the owner of the benefit of his enterprise and of a due return for the capital which he has expended at the , suggestion of this very Court, a Court moreover which has no power to order him any compensation for his enforced loss. Here is a door opened by the Act to the Court to say we-w^H be consistent and fair ; we have already^licensed three houses m Foxton at a younger period of its existence, and we have held out inducements for the expenditure of a large sum of money upon the house. This section tells the applicant that nothing therein contained shall be construed to prevent him from renewing his application at any subsequent meeting of the Licensing Court, . although such application may have * been refused at a former meeting of such Court. The law allows us to think twice upon the matter and we Erant the application. After Mr Mcean's address the Commission retired, and qn returning, after an absence of -twenty, "eight minutes, the Chairman said with regard to the application of Edward John Barnett for a license for the Foxton Family Hotel, the Court had decided to grant the license. He would say further that no police report, had- been made regarding the houses at present licensed, and he must request that Constable Purcell furnish a report of all the houses within the district m a .fortnight : the Court would adjourn for fourteen days. The Licensing Court were determined to see that all the within their dsitrict were conducted m a proper manner. ■