THE BRUCE LICENSING COMMITTEE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12991, 4 June 1904, Page 4

THE BRUCE LICENSING COMMITTEE.

, A NEW DEVELOPMENT. Considerable interest centred yesterday in the proceedings of the Bruco licensing Committee, which met at Milton in compliance with a mandamus from the Supreme Court. By noon,,the hour fixed for the meeting,' tho local courthouse contained a large audience, but' tho fact that the committee—Mr G. Cruickshanfc, S.M. (chairman), Rev. P. B. 'Eraser, Messrs J. Adam, A. Dunlop, P. M'Skimming, and H. Frazcr-were a quarter of an hour late in taking their seats on the bench was not considered a particularly good sign.- . The Chairman said they had decided first to hold (mine pro time) the meeting that bliodi have been held last June, doing this, in compliance with the Sutireme Court mandamus to hear and determine applications, and then, after a short adjournment, the annual meeting for this year would be held.; . .

■ The police reports being favourable and there being no objections, the following applications for licenses as from July 1, 1805, to 'June 30, 1904, were granted:— /Thomas Gray, Bridge Hotel, Kaitangata. (Mr D. D.'Macdonald); Robert D. Ritchie, Milton Hotel (Mr D. Reid); George E. Westcoit,'Stirling Hotel (Mr N. Paterson); John M'Kay, Club Hotel, Kaitangata (Miss Benjamin); Frederick Bastings, White Horse Hotel, Milton (Mr Paterson); Hugh G. Coombe, Commercial Hotel. Milton (Mr Patcrßon); Archibald Paterson, Lake Hotel, Waiholft'(Mr Patersor.); George Ondaille, Bridge Hotel, Waitahuna (Mr Paiorson); Thomas Broderick, Havelock Hotel, Waitahuna (Mr Reid). All of these raoeptins tho first two were applications for ronowal.

Mr Macdonald's application on behalf of Patrick Laffey, Royal Hotel, Milton, was also granted,- , the chairman remarking that tho hotel had been conducted well up to last June.

Miss Benjamin applied tor an accommodation license for William Anderson, Victoria Hotel, Glenoid In granting the application the Chairman remarked that (he liconsee had -been convicted of Sunday trading,'' but'tho place hud been well conducted since. It had been held that n single conviction was not a proof of bad conduct. ■ ■ THE QCTSTIOX OF TOES. In respect to the application last mentioned, Slier Benjamin asked that the fees lobe paid might be fixed. The committee •Jiad .power to name the fee in respect to accommodation licenses, and in . this • case .there was now only a month to run. Tho ustlal feo was £10 a year. .

The Chairman said that while on the subject of fees he wa3 rather doubtful about tho powers of tho committee, as it should have been holding its mooting last June. It was perfectly agreeable, however, if it liad tho ppwer, to reducq the fee in respect to all the licenses mentioned to £10—that was) to a fourth of the full fee; but that was a matter for the licensoos to fight out with the Bruce County Council. Mr Macdonald suggested that the committee should iriako a recommendation to :, that effect as regards reduction of fees. Ho also pointed out that payment of' a fourth of the fee was still excessive, as the period now remaining was only up till tho "end of June. In equity he considered only one-twelfth of tho fco should be paid. : The Chairman, aftor consultation with the ,' committee, said they had agreed to recommend that one-twelfth part of the foe elionld be paid by tho licensees, except in respect to the accommodation license, where the amount would bo reduced to £1. Tho committee was anxious to do what was equitable for eyeryone. Tho mooting was then adjourned. , ■ THE ANNUAL MEETING. ; •■" A LAPSE THROUGH A TEOHNICALITT. .A.few minutes later tho committee re- ( ) tunned, the business being tho holding of tho annual .licensing meeting to deal with applications for licenses for tho onsning year. The Chairman said that before the meeting was opened there .was a point to be settled. Mr Iraser hau drawn his attention to the question as to whether the , meeting was quite in order, and had 1 or had not been sufficiently advertised. The advertJEefflbnts were then produced, showing that the meeting had been advertised on. May 18, 19, and 20.. ' .Tho Chairman said he would, like to lieav the opinion of counsel on this point. Section 41 *>£ the oct said that' the meeting bad to be advertised and motico put up a month before the meeting. .. ■ Mr Macdonald said the committee had 'surely power to rectify its own mistakes. Here was a mistake mad© apparently by the cominittee or its officer, and it was certainly not a mistake that should be visited on tho unfortunate licensees. Apart from that, however, ho had beeiv instructed by thffio who had of tho case for tho licensees, that there was. a distinct undersending' between the counsel engaged, and that an undertaking was given by Mr Adams to the counsel on the othe rsido that thes* applications would abide the decision of tho Privy Council, arid l no technicality of any kind as to timo or anything elte would betaken advantage, of. That had/he understood, come before Mr Justice Williams the other day. in tho matter of the mandamus. The Chairman: What I want to- know , ' is: Are we in order or not in holding this itieeting? . Assuming that the committee would not waive its objection, what would . . be the position then?, ■ . ' .Mr Macdonald: Then I suppose we would • have to go to the Supreme Court again. . i . • # Continuing, Mr Macdonald' - subniitted that t if. a mistake as to advertising had been made the committee should ignore it. No oils was likely to .object to its doin" so ,;. after the decision had been given that these Howes should be granted. _Tho Chairman: Wβ have given you :•:,'■ licenses, and obeyed the mandamus, and '. reduced your lioense fees. Section 41, how- \ ever, has not bean complied.with, and the question is: Is section 41 n'condition pre'i': cedent to the'holdirig of this meeting? ' . Mr Maetlonald atbmitrod that there was i nothing in the act to show that, tho Ecction . • mentioned was precedent to the jurisdiction of the. committee. Tho section was not a ihandqtqry port of the act, but simply .-- -a directory part of.it. If ever a mistake shoum be rectified, this one should bo. . ( Mr Reid eubmittod tliat to hold the objection tenable would bo.to stulti'iy tho act ■of the cominittee itself. It was a funda- • mental, principle of law' that no oho. could tnko advantage of his own wrong-doing.' ■.. . The Chairman said tho' committee had ' . (iptbing to do with ii. The clerk ms not an officer of tho Lionising Committee. ■•: ., Mr Reid submitted that the elerk was a very important officer of the Licensing Comlnitteo. Amd could no! act without the sanction- of its chairman. , ' 'The Chairman: He is the statutory officer i, nndfr'section 41.

_ Mr Reid said it must be admitted that tne mistake was not wilfully made, otherwise ; the clerk would be uiifit (o occupy his position. Tho' omission, however, was provided ' for by section 28 of the act of. 1895, and the only conclusion to be drawn from that was that tho'-'omlasioii waa of such-a nature ai to bo in the potyer of the committee tp . amend.. Tlie section read as follows:—"In any ease, -where nny person ha? neglected or omitted.to do any net or thing in the :■ 'precise manner or within the precise timq specified therefor by the Licensing Acta, the committee, or the chair- :>. man and, any two members thereof, if ■•■' satisfied (hat snoh neglect or omission, was 1 • not wilful, may, by certificate under the .' luuid of the chairman, waive tho same upen . ■ such terms as they deem equitable." The framers of no aot could have, put it in mows precise or convincing' terms. The I agree with you •■• ,Mr Reid'then askett the cliairman to issile a. certificate, that the omission, as to advertising be waived. The Chairman: We are using the clerk; ." »5 it matter of argument, biit he is not in the slightest degree to blanie, " Mr' Rsid: Who is to Mame? The Chairman' replied that tho clerk did not advertijiV till the denisipo of the Privy Council cam© out. "... ■"' ' • Mr Reid'said the,mistake as to advertising caused no loss or ijioonvMiience.-but it would cause has ami inconyciiiertce -i!. Mr leaser's corfteintioii' were maintained. Tlie act said , that a meeting shoulul ■he held the first 10 days of' June. They asked the chairman now .tq remedy the Gffiissien. ' . ■ ,- '-.■• ' The Chairman: I can't do it by myself. . It says the chairman and two members.• Mr Reid, said tho committee tad to act 'judicially, and waivp their private opinions. Before refusing to amend the omission the

committee must, rule tliat rtho clerk did what ho did with the object of evading Miss Benjamin said • that in connection with this matter of advertising, sh6 wrote to tho clerk of the court in plenty of timo asking him to advertise,- and also saw tho. chairman and drew his attention to tho fact that tho advertisement had not been put in, and that all applications "wero posted in due time.

Tho Chairman said/all ,tho. applications had been posted in due- tinuv ■ Miss Benjamin further said-there'had been an engagement' between Mr Adams (acting for the members of the- committee) and , herself, in which - he agreed that no; objection should be taken in regard to time, once (ho the Privy Council's judgment was known, but that' the committee should meet and grant all applications, thereafter. Since then she had heard that the elected membeje of the committee had gone back on Mr Adams, and refused td hold u meeting before that day, Mr Adams stated that no technical objections should , be raised, and his Honor Mr Justice. Williams had possession of that agreement, which could be obtained at any time'for'inspection. Mr Paterson submitted that (lie assurance given by Mr Adams on. behalf of the committee should weigh with tho committee'. The 'Chairman: We will retire and consider the matter. ' ' , '

After a brief interval tho' committee returned, and tho Chairman stated that he was directed by the elective, members of tlie committee to announce that if Sir Adams gave the undertaking referred to, it was without tho committee's knowledge, and they did not feel, bound byit,"a)i:l as' soon as they heard of it they 'repudiated it, the committee having; always intimated that it would make all possible objection. • The committee would not give in or waive tho objection that it had raised, n'nd it; considered it had no jurisdiction. Mr MnedonnM asked tlio' olwirinan to make a full note of" his ' contention, .which w-M this: that by section 40 of the act of 1881 the.returning officer , 'appointed'the day for tho meeting, and the Licensing Committee had tho.i jurisdiction to.pwieocd with its business. Section 41 stated that the picric had to advertise the day on w'.iich th'< meeting was to bo hold , one calendar montlr before- it was held, and that i:rovi»iou was not mandatory, but me-rely diieetcry. and pertainly did not prevent thn committee laving jurisdiction. Tho Chairman said he had a full note of tho argument. The. deot-ivo members of the- committee practically- gave the opinion that (ho section wm mandatory, and were prepared to eland tho teat of. it. That being so. tho meeting could not be proceeded with any further Proceedings then closed at 1.15 p.m.