NEWTOWN LICENSING CASE.

North Otago Times, 1 August 1903, Page 2

NEWTOWN LICENSING CASE.

-.-■■ By Telegraph. ( ; Wellington,. July 31. In the Newtown case,, the judgment of Ibo Court was that the Committee hf,d no power to "renew licenses, and a mandanus could not bo issued. The. Chief Justice .said it was not suliicient to hold a poll; there must "ho determination, and there was none, if the poll were ,'Jeclared void. The words of the Act were, " until the electors ha v e previously- determined," " I could find no authority enabling the Court to Sit aside," saifl the Unicf Justice. " The Committee hud no jurisdiction, and the application must be refused." Judge Denniston commented strongly on the omission of thq Legislature to provide for the difficulty caused-by voiding the poll, but said the Court could not supply its omission,.though the consequences might be portentous. Judge Cooper concurred with.Sir. Robert Stout a»i Judga Denniston, and Judges Edwards and Conolly dissented. The mandamus was, therefore, icfuscd-by a majority of ono.. The judgments were lengthy, and the delivery occupied 111 1.33. Leave was granted all hconsecs to appeal' direct to -tlicTrii.vy Council. In the Newtown case, of five judges | who heard it, three (the Chief Justice, Justices Denniston and Cooper) | were of opinion that a mandamus could not bo issued, and that became 1 the judgment of tho Court. The other two (Judges Edwards and Conolly) were in favor of directing its issue. Judge Edwards read a very long' judgment, in which he set out fully the recorded ilnjuries inflicted on the community by voiding of a Poll, v and pointed out some absurdities that would arise. Amongst others he contended that Newtown would'becomo a_ prohibition area, for ever by prohibition, being obtained in this way, also that a tenant could not claim .the relief especially given by the' Act for their benefit unless there wjis a poll. .-Judge Denniston also commentled strongly on the position arrived' at by theicai'olfisrsncss'of'the legfela|ture in not providing, what was. to be done when a poll was- declared void. [The fault w a s theirs, not the Court's jfor the Court had no power to do what the legislature had failed to do. Judge Denlniston expressed gr.eat sympathy with the licensees in with what he. called the " portentous " consequence of, the state of the law, and hinted it was the duty of Parliament to set matters straight at once. The judgment of the majority, as set out by Sir Robert Stout, hinged largely on th 0 question of determination, l'l was not sufficient, he said, that there a j>oll, There must be, a detcttnmp.tion, for-tho'electors stood in the place of the former licensing authonty,, The contention that tho aw was satisfied if a determination 2in T ■ to and Awards set nado did not appear to him to nave any warrant, There was 110 determination over come to. If aio'l void there was notiii,.; ercise of its functions, and it was a Jgato of tto doeton that tte mi tee must obey. The section was ; rh ° ™-d 3 ° R wero: lion -S' B T vMQYm]^^-S's-StStrr &:3Sd u rf^° £ •4^ TO crtapli^ 1) T b ! 0,l