HOTEL LICENSES.

Otago Witness, Issue 2963, 28 December 1910, Page 38

HOTEL LICENSES.

FITNESS OF APPLICANTS. THE MAGISTRATE'S DISCRETION, WELLINGTON, December 25. An interesting action under the licensing law came before Mr Justice Cooper in. the Supreme Court to-day, the plaintiff being Frederick James Bright, and the defendant Andrew Duncan Thomson, Stipendiary Magistrate. Plaintiff set out that he was a settler residing at Eketahuna, and married. Being desirous of obtaining a transfer of the license of the Telegraph Hotel at Otaki, he applied to Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., for a certificate of his fitness to hold such license. Defendant refused to give a certificate on the grounds that (a) plaintiffs wife did not intend to go and reside with him at the hotel; (b) defendant had made it a rule to refuse a certificate of fitness {except on exceptional circumstances) to married men whose wives would not be resident at the hotel. Plaintiff stated that otherwise the magistrate was satisfied as to his (plaintiff*s) character, record, and financial position. Plaintiff claimed that the magistrate had exceeded his jurisdiction in refusing a certificate, and asked the court to issue a mandamus ordering the defendant to issue the necessary certificate. In defence Mr Thomson said the license had previously been held by a single man, and the result was most unsatisfactory from a moral point of view. He considered it essential for the protection of the female servants, and in order that the house might be properly conducted, that the licensee’s wife should reside with him on the premises. On the 25th of November Mrs Bright allied on defendant, ana said she would under no circumstances reside in a hotel in Otaki. Mr Young appeared for the plaintiff ani Mr Ostler for"*defendant. In outlining the mam facts Mr Young said the petitioner was an elderly man. He had been a member of the Wairarapa Licensing Bench for 27 years. Mr Bright owned a farm at Eketalmna, and on going into a sawmliling venture at Masterton left the management of the farm to h;s wife and son, and three years ago, not wishing to disturb his sou. purchased the freehold of the hotel at Otaki. There was absolutely nothing against his character. Counsel contended that the magistrate had exceeded his jurisdiction, and had improperly exercised his discretion. His Honor: You say that whether the man is married or single, if he is of good character, and fit to hold a license, ho is entitled to a license? Counsel: “Yes, I must go that length. !> Ho added that Mr Bright was 60 years of age, and that he was not legally separated from his wife. The statute set out the disqualifications imposed. Kis Honor : Yes, but it does not define “fitness.” That is left entirely to the magistrate.. Mr Young said that section 72 of the act provided that licenses could be held by widows or by women who had obtained a separation order. There was no bar against men. One would imagine that a man who was separated from his wife was a more “ fit ” person to hold aGi cense than a woman who was separated from her husband. He contended that the magistrate by his decision had added two disqualifications to the statute against single amT manned men whose wife did not reside on ihe premises. Mr Bright proposed to have a housekeeper to look after the interest of the female servants Counsel submitted that this was a typical instance of where the magistrate had laid down an arbitrary rule. If Mr Thomson s objection was held to be good it meant that all unmarried men were debarred from holding a license. Mr Ostler contended that it was the general practice throughout New Zealand on the part of magistrates to report that applicants for licenses who were bachelors or separated from their husbands were not “fit” persons to hold licenses. Counsel had made inquiries that morning and ascertained that in no single case had a license. been issued to bachelors. Alt- Young’s argument meant that no magistrate had power *to say whether a man was “fit” or not to hold a 1 ense where his character was good. The act empowered magistrate's to consider applicants’ “ character and suitability.” His Honor: A man may be of excellent character and yet utterly unsuitable to hold a license. His Honor added that if one magistrate in his discretion refused a license to a single man and another magistrate in another district granted a license in like circumstances, the court could not interfere. It was still an exercise of discretion. Counsel further contended that where a magistrate infringed no principle • of justice there could be no interference with the wide discretion given him. The reason given by the magistrate for hie refusal of the license was not only not unreasonable, but it was good and valid and in accordance with the spirit of tho licensing law, which placed most rigid restrictions on licenses for sale of alcoholic liquors. Although Mr Bright was a man of exceptional character, counsel contended that ho was not a fit and proper person within tiie meaning of the act to hold a license, and he submitted that the court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus. In reply, Mr Young said there was no authority for the statement of his friend that it was the practice to refuse licenses all over the colony to unmarried men or men separated from their wives. That was the very difficulty he was fighting. It had been assumed that such was the case, but there was no warrant for tho statement. His Honor said he would not decide the matter without consideration, but he was not at ail sure that it was not a good thing to have all hotel licenses held by men confined to married men in order that the interests of the public and tho good conduct of tho servants might he conserved. Tho Legislature had dele-

gated to the magistrates power to say what constituted li fitness.” After further argument, his Honor reserved his decision till January 4.