WAIKOUAITI LICENSING COMMITTEE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2734, 8 August 1906, Page 16

WAIKOUAITI LICENSING COMMITTEE.

MOTION TO / COMPEL COMMITTEE TO GRANT A LICENSE.

ADJOURNED FOR A WEEK.

At a sitting of the , Supreme Court in Banco on Thursday, Mr Justice Cooper hoard an application for a writ of mandamus to compel the Waikouaiti Licensing Committee (Major Keddcll, of Oamaru, stipendiary magistrate, Alexander Kilpatrick, James Steven, Rev. Wra- Nichol, Rev Donald M'lvor, and Thomas Muir), to grant arenewal of the accommodation license of the Railway Hotel at Waianakarua.

Mr J. H. Hosking appeared for the plainr tiff, John^ Outred, of Waianakajrua, accommodation housekeeper; Mr A. S. Adams for the defendants.

The facts of the case, briefly, are these: #b 1905 an accommodation license was granted to Outred for the Railway Hotel. On the hearing of that application, Outred alleges,, the question of the distance between his hotel and tho HampcTen Hotel was gone into. At the annual meeting of the Licensing Committee in June this year the committee, in carrying out tho reduction vote, refused Outred's application, together with two publicans' licens.es. On application to the Supreme Court it was decided that this refusal was based on a misreading of the statute, and the committee was ordered to hear and determine the application afresh. The committee met accordingly on the 20th June, and at that meeting gave notice to Outred that under section 63 of the Licensing Act of 1881 there were, in the committee's opinion, certain objections to the granting of a renewal — amongst others, that the premises were out of repair, and the meeting was then adjourned to the 11th July. On that date the committee met .again, heard evidence called by Outred to meet the objections raised, and after retiring the committee intimated that there was a further objection, that the premises were within^fivo miles by public road of the Hampcron Hotel, for which a publican's license had been granted. The committee offered Outred an adjournment, which was refused, and after argument the committee retired. Upon resuming they refused the renewal upon the two grounds above staged — namely, that the place was out of repair and within the five miles. Outred.wJiow applied for a second writ of mandmr.us requiring the committee to grant t*e license. The grounds of tho application were thus set forth:— (l) Thai th<v co/rmitiee was legally bound to grant the co;tificate for renewal of the Ixcen3e, an-J then, not having done so, was wrot.jj iv law; (2) that the plaintiff was legally entitled to a renewal, subject only to obj<»o tions being made and sustained as net' forth in section ' 81 of the Licensing Act of 1881 ; (3) that no evidence was given before the committee in support of any objection; (4) that the decision of the committee that the premises were out of repair was contrary to facts within the knowledge of the committee, and was not arrived at fairly and honestly ; (5) that the objection that the premises weresituated within five miles of other licensed premises' was not open to the committee: (6) that the committee had predetermined tho mattor.

Mr Hoiking, in commencing to open the matter, said that the action of the committee was as perverse as anything -he bad come upon in his experience. His Honor remarked that the affidavit before him from two members of the committee seemed to him to be an insincere affidavit. It did not state whether, in the opinion of the committee, the premises were out of repair. So far as the committee as a whole was concerned, all that, the committee said was that it thought it could refuse 1o grant the license. The eommittoe had apparently ignored all tho sworn- evidence in this case. He though! that tho committee ought to fvtate disi tinctlv whether or not in its opinion th« premises were out of order.

Mr Adams: The committee is distinct!^ of that opinion. His Honor: I shall refer the matter bar*., with instructions to tho committee 1o i" form the court tipon affidavit whether i,< its opinion, from tho inspections they hav< made, the premises were out of repair and in what respect.

Mr Adams: I have no objection, thoutr T I did not think that was a matter for th"< court. «.

His Honor: I think it is. I have affl davits before me— l will say nothing oi