ANOTHER PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL.

Otago Witness, Issue 2623, 22 June 1904, Page 79

ANOTHER PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL.

THE PORT CHALMERS LOCAL OPTION POLL. (Fkosi Our Own Cossespoxdent.)

LONDON, May b. It would re-cm that the Now Zealand Licensing Acts are destined to find as much work for the legal profession as has the Workmen's Compensation Acts in this country. By last mail I tent you a report of a New Zealand licensing appeal heard before the Judicial Committee of tho Privy Council. Yesterday the- same- committee had before it a somewhat similar matter

Mr Monro presented a petition in the case of Graham and five others v. Callaghau (ex narte). asking, on behalf of certain ilectors "of the district. Port Chalmers, that they might have lc-ave to appeal to the King- in Council. Tho petitioners, th-" 1 '" fhe others.'' arc l'oc)i r e holders in rcspeT. of li^tols in rho district named. Mr CJraham i^ stipendiary magistrate at Duuedin, but occasionally sits "at Pott Chalmers A licensing poll was tiken in Nove Tiber, 1902, and in the district of Port Ciia'mc-rs tho result wa = "in licenses." Notices were filed in the INlagistrate's Couit by petitioners and other electors impeaching legulariiy of the poll anil praying for an inquiry. Mr Gr&ham gave nolicp. of ar inquiiy to be held at the Magistrate's Court, but the respondents objected to Mr Graha.n heanng the petitions on the ground that he was l.ot tlv reticent magistrate of tho court-. The objection was- overru'ed, but. the respondent obtained from tLaSupreme Courl a writ prohibiting Mr Graham frdn hearing the petition*. An omieal by the petitioner to the New Zealand Couri of Appeal wp<s rtisru'ssod by three- judges to two on the. ground that Mr Care-.v, who usually presided at tho court, was -the- resident magistrate- vithin the meaning of the> act who should have held the inquiry. Leavo to appeal to hip Majesty was also refused by the Court of Appeal o'i the ground cf want of jurisdiction, no money \ a'ue being invoked, though it was conccc'°d i'safc ihf. case, was e uitable for appeal. The petitioners now alleged that there had Uc-ca misconstruction of section 48 of th? Alcoholic Liquor Sales Control Act; that since 1893 all stipendiary magistrates had had equal authority; and that £500 and upwards was involved in respect of eich petitioner as licensees. Leave was- given to appeal. The ca^e is not likely to come on till next winter.