THE SEDDONVILLE HOTEL CASE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLV, Issue XLV, 17 August 1910, Page 6

THE SEDDONVILLE HOTEL CASE.

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. (Special to "Mail.")

WELLINGTON, Wednes.

A point of the Licensing law was discussed before his Honor Mr. Justice Cooper in banco vesterdav. The case relates to the Sedodnvillo" Hotel. Mr A. T. Maginnity, of Nelson, appearing for the licensee, Henry Wahners. Consideration of the application for a renewal of the license- had been adjourned by the Motueka Licensing Committee pending a. ruling of the Supreme Court as to whether the Committee could legally .grant a renewal. Application for removal of the hotel had been made in September, 1908, but was not granted until the following December, and in the meantime the boundaries of the district had been altered, and gave more licenses for issue by the Motueka Licensing Committee. Walters moved into the new house before his application for a license was granted in respect of his new premises, and he sold liquor meantime in a shanty on the old .site by consent of the Licensing Committee. " When the poll was taken on November 17th the people voted with the knowledge that there would be an additional license within the Motueka Licensing district. The license was granted in December, and was renewed in June. 1909, by the same Committee. It would have been renewed again in 1910. counsel pointed out, but the Chairman felt it was his duty to call the attention of the Committee to Section 52 of the Licensing Act, which made it penal for a Licensing Committee to grant a renewal in opposition to the determination of the electors. Members of the. Committee were pei'sonally liable. Counsel contended that the grant of removal was a legal grant, and that therefore there was a legal and valid existing license for the present house, which was three-quarters of a mile distant from the old hotel. He claimed it was doubtful whether under sec. 109 the licensee was entitled to renewal, and it was doubtful whther under section 109 the Committee were not compelled to grant the license. It was not suggested that the Committee refused to grant the license for any of the definite reasons mentioned in the Act. Their onlv reason was want of jurisdiction. His Honor reserved judgment on the point raised.