LICENSING COMMITTEES AND THE SUPREME COURT. TO TUE EDITOR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 9512, 22 August 1892, Page 4

LICENSING COMMITTEES AND THE SUPREME COURT. TO TUE EDITOR.

Sii!,—The licensing question has occupied a great amount of your space, anil, what is more, it has of lato occupied the attention of most of the people of Now Zealand. It seems to me that the whole trouble has arisen by the contention and decision that the licensing committee is a court. lam sure that the act never intended the licensing committee to be a court. It was simply to bo an administrative body to give or refuse licenses. In the olden days tho warden had the power of giving or refusing licenses under the Goldlields Act. Nobody ever thought of contending that a, warden was a court in the sense of having his decision or discretions reviewed. If such had been contended either in Victoria or here it would have made the goldfields lulmiuistration utterly unworkable. Now, I have inquired who is to blame mainly for this contention that the licensing committee is a court subject to the rules of a couit and of proceedings by way of certiorari, Sc. and I am informed, that this contention was strenuously made by (•he prohibitionists themselves. In Koche's case, which came before his Honor Mr Justice "Williams, and afterwards the Court of Appeal, Sir Robert Stout appeared for the licensee (Mrs Roche), and Mr A. S. Adams appeared on behalf of the Solicitor-general, at the instance of Mr D. G. Cameron, the secretary of the Good '.Templars. Sir Kobert Stout contended that tho licensing committee was not a court, and that the Supreme Court had no power over the decision of the licensing committees, as they were pure administrators elected by tho public, and to decide license or no license in their absolute discretion. The Good Templars, through their secretary and counsel, however, contended that the licensing committee was a court, and was subject lo the control of the Supreme Court, and that the court could interfere with its decision. This has been the whole origin of the trouble both in (lie Sydonliam and the rtoslyn cases. If, therefore, it should turn out that the courts can interfere with licensing committees, this result has been brought about by the Good Templars themselves, as 1 have pointed out, and they are, to use a common phrase, "being hoist with their own petard."—l am, &«., August IS. Nkmos.

" A tmiiiin:,' in cleanliness is a fortune. Complete youi-education with K.W'OUO. SAI'OhJO. HAI'OLIO. It is a solid caUi! of Soouring Soaj) used for all i-lciiniiiK iiui-poses except the luuiulry.