SEDDONVILLE HOTEL CASE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLV, Issue XLV, 19 August 1910, Page 3

SEDDONVILLE HOTEL CASE.

supreme coi'irr i.>i:eisrox

FORTIIER DETAILS.

(Special to '' Mail.'')

WELLI.VI.TOX. Tliis Day

A point of the licensing law. arising out of an application by Henry Wolters for the renewal of the license for the Seddon vo'lle Hotel, was ■decided by Mr Justice Cooper yester-\ day. The Motueka Licensing Committee doubted whether.it could legally grant a renewal, and awaited instructi oils from the Court. Application for the removal of the hotel had been made iu September. ItiOS. •'int was not granted until the following December, and in the meantime the 'boundaries of the "district had been altered, •giving more licences for issue by the Motueka Licensing Committee. Walters moved into the new house before his application •for a license was igranted in respect vof Tiis new premises, aud lie sold iiiri'-.or meantime in a shanty on the 01-J cite Ibv consent of the Licensing Committee. When the poll was ".a.ken on the "17th November the people voted with the knowledge that, there would the an additional iie.cive within the Motueka licensing •district. The license was granted in December, and was renewed in June. '19051. 'b3' the same Committee. it would have (been renewed again in 1909; but the chairman felt it his 'duty to call the attention of the 'Committee to section 52 of the Li■censiiig Act, wbieh made it penal for ■a Li lien-sing Committee to grant a renewa* in opposition to the jletermi•nation of the electors. Members til the Committee were personally liable.

The electors of the altered dis .triet, in Hi - - Honor's opinion. must be presumed to have voted for eon•tinuance upon the assumption, and wit.h the knowledge, that the Licensing Committee had jurisdict ion, notwithstanding the alteration of the 'boundaries, an-J the taking of the poll to grant, the renewal of the license, and their ailirmatiou that the nunifber of exis'tin'g licenses should continue, include also a license which, although not in terms actually granted. had, in fact. been ap*pli.ed for, and was in law within the .•jurisdiction of the Committee to .grant, notwithstanding the alteration of the 'boundaries, as the plaintiff clearly had a right before the 'po''l to -apply for th-j removal; and as the Committee bad clear jurisdiction, notwithstanding fhe poll, to 'grant it, he was of opinion that the applicant's right to apply for a- sub isequent renewal and the Committee's 'jurisdiction to grant it, could only be destroyed by express words or by a conclusive inference from fhe termsused in the statute. His Honor found no such words. or could lie idrnw any such conclusive inference, and the application. was accordingly } rr.i n ted.

1 Mr A. T. Maginnity, of Xel son. appeared in :sup;>ort of the applicant.