THE AFFIDAVITS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2734, 8 August 1906, Page 17

THE AFFIDAVITS.

• THE COMMITTEE'S POSITION .DEFINED. Major Keddell's affidavit is in the following terms- — " There was no evidence before the committee in support of either objection. The evidence, in my opinion, -completely disproved all the objections mentioned in paragraph 2 (that the premises were out of repair), and I informed the committee that in my- opinion the objection as to distance was not open to the committee. The committee had pre-determined to refuse the renewal, and did not discuss or consider the evidence that had been adduced." v Charles Edward George, builder, in his affidavit, said:— "On the 26th July I made a iihorough examination of the building from foundations to roof. . . . The whole place bean evidence of having been well cared for, weH kept, and maintained, and by no stretch of imagination could any person honestly" say that the building is not in good repair." The affidavit by two members of the Licensing Committee runs thus : — We, Thomas Muir. of Palmerston, in the provincial district of Otago. in the colony of New Zealand, runholder, and Alexander Kilpatrick, of Waitati, storekeeper, two of the above-named defendents, make oath and say • — 1. We have read the statement of claim filed herein and the affidavits filed in support thereof. 2. Two of elective members of the Licensing Committee Lad personal knowledge of the Railway Hotel at Waianakarua. arcl the condition and state of repair thereof, and communicated their knowledge to the other zlective members of the said committee before the 6th day of June,' 1906, on which date the first meeting of the said committee was held.3. At the said meeting the whole of the committee, including the chairman, were of opinion that the license for the said hertel could be refused as one of the licenses to be reduced under the redaction vote. It appeared,* therefore, to be unnecessary to raise any other question in connection with the plaintiff's application for a certificate for the granting of a license therefor. » 4. Before the above-named meeting and thereafter, and on the 29th day of June, all -the elective members of tie committee were bona fide of opinion that the objections afterwards made by them, as stated in the statement of tslaim, -would "be objections to the of the plaintiffs aculicatisß-

J 5. The defendants live at considerable distance from «ach other, and are scattered throughout a country district. The chairman, on receipt of information as to the decision of the court, as mentioned m paragraph 11 of the statement of claim, fixod the 29th day of June last, at Palmers ton, as the time and place for the adjourned meeting of the committee ordered by the court, without reference to any of the other members, and it was not possible for the members to make any joint inspection of the premises before this meeting. 6. Immediately alter the said meeting on the said 29th day of June,, four of the elective members of the committee (including ourselves) inspected the said Railway Hotel, and informed themselves carefully -»s to the condition and repair thereof. 7. Alter the said meeting of the 29th day of June last the elective members of the committee took steeps to ascertain the distance between the Railway Hotel at Waianakartia and. the Hampden Hotel, and they satisfied themselves that the said distance was, in- fact, less than five miles by public read. The said Hampden Hotel is a house for which a publican's license has been granted and renewed for many years continuously and was in force at the time of the hearing of the plaintiff's application, and is now in force. 8. The above information "as to the said distance was obtained both from the record Government mape and from actual measurement of the road.' _9. At the meeting of the committee en •the 11th day of July last, before taking - their seats on the bench, the chairman asked the other members of the committee what Chey to do. One of the members stated that they should hear the evidence and then retire and consider their decision. This was agreed to. , The comnrttee hea^d the evidence called on behalf of the plaintiff, and the argument of hie counsel. They then retired, and one of the elective members of the committee informed the chairman that they wished to raise the additional objection that the premises were within five miles by public road of premises for which a publican's license had already been granted and •was in Jorce. The committee resumed their seats, and this objection was then stated and an adjournment offered to the applicant and refused by his counsel. 10. After hearing the argument of counsel, the committee retired, and the chairman asked what they would do. One of the members of the committee thereupon proposed that the license should be refused on the ground that the premises were out of repair and that they were situated within five mi lee j by public road ol premises for which a pub- | lican'e license had already been granted and was in force. The chairman then put that proposal to each member of the committee, and it was carried by unanimous vote -of all the members except the chairman. ll* Neil Boas, one of the witnesses called on behalf of the plaintiff, is a resident in the district, but he stated that he had never stayed in the hotel, and did not givp any evidence to show that he had ever made any inspection oT the hot.se. 12. The witness Barclay stayed *t the hotel on one occasion only, at the time of an Easter encampment, when special provision | would have been made. 13. The witness JM'Queai is a son-in-law of the plaintiff. 14. The committee did not pr«determ ; ne the plaintiff's application, nor did they decide to refu-e the application till after they had heard all the evidence and arguments, and they honestly and fairly heard and determined the same in accordance with the order . of tins honourable ccurt. And I, the said Thomas Muir, for myself < say — { 15. I was a member of the Licensing Committee for the licensing district of "W-'ikou-aiti, in the year one thous°nd nine hundred and five, and was present at the annual meeting that year a+ which an accoinmodat on license was grunted to the svid John Outred . for the said hotel. The .evidence given at that meeting: as to tho d-sta-nce of the said hotel from Hampden Hotel was as to belief only. The defendant. "William Nichol. who was also a member of the said, o'mvnitt«»e. informed the committee that be was patiffied thai the said distance waft less *har> five miles, but the other members of the committee accepted the opinion of Ihe witness who j | had been catl-xl, and granted the hoen&e. j