OTAUTAU HOTEL LICENSE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3557, 16 May 1922, Page 45

OTAUTAU HOTEL LICENSE.

PUBLICAN v. LICENSING COMMITTEE. LENGTHY LEGAL ARGUMENT. . His Honor Air Juctiee Sim was occupied in the Supreme Court all day on Friday hearing the case in which a publican sought writs compelling the Wallace Licensing G-ommittee to grant him the license which T had refused on legal grounds. Michael U Bnen, licensee of the Crown Hotel, Otautau, moved for a writ of certiorari and a writ of mandamus against the Wallace Licensing Committee, consisting of Messrs George Oruickshank. S.M., of Invercargill; John Horrell. of Te W ae, farmer; Leonard Wright Petehell, of Riverton, aoeountant and commission, agent; Arthur Bui man, of rairfax, farmer; William Templeton, of Riverton, flaxmiller; and Edward John otevens, of Hekeia, farmer. It appeared from the statement of claim that the Crown Hotel at Otautau was destroyed by fire in May, 1919. In the same month the chairman and two members of the Licensing Committee gave the plaintiff a certificate authorising him to carrv on business in premises at the rear of the destroyed buPdinc for a period of six months. In December, 1919. the committee granted plaintiff an extension till the March, 1920. meeting. At that meeting the committee adjourned the matter for a month to enable plaintiff to report, what provision he proposed to make for boarders and travellers. The committee laid down certain requirements as to accommodation, and in June, 1920, a publican’s 1 ieense was issued to plaintiff. When plaintiff applied for a renewal of his license in June, 1921, Inspector S. J. Dew objected on the ground that the premises were not maintained at the required standard. Objections were also lodged on behalf of the Wallace Nolicons© League, and tho Otautau branch of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. A memorial from electors asking that the license be not granted was supported by legal argument at the September meeting of the committee. The committee subsequently decided that the legal objection raised was sound, and adopted a resolution regretting that as the legal objection raised was sound the application must be refused. The plaintiff asked (a! that a .writ of certiorari te issued for the purpose of quashing or setting aside the refusal; (b) that a writ of mandamus be issued to the defendants ordering them to hear and. determine the plaintiff’s application : and (e) that the court order the payment of costs to the plaintiff. Air ,T. B. Callan and Air Lang appeared for the plaintiff. Air F. B. Adams for all the defendants except Bulman. and Mr Irwin for Bulman. Air Irwin said his client simply submitted to the order of the court. He had been asked to join with the other defendants and to instruct counsel, and the letter set out that the No-license party would undertake the defence. Mr Bulman declined to join with the others, and simply filed his affidavit setting out what he believed to be the facts Air Callan said be regarded section 171 of the Act as being the crucial section concerned in the case. He went on to deal at length with the facts of the case and the legal points involved. Mr Adams said this was the first occasion on which they had heard of section 171 in this case. It had not occurred to the plaintiff before to set this section before the committee. His learned friend’s contention was that if any part of the destroyed building remained the licensee could go on claiming renewal until a reasonable time for rebuilding had elapsed, and he interpreted “a reasonable time” to extend at least as far as three years, for it was now almost three years since the hotel was burned. It was suggested that although a man had no intention of rebuilding and was making no effort to rebuild, yet be was entitled to hold bis license till a reasonable time had elapsed; but lie submitted that that was an impossible view. Mr Callan, in replying, combatted Air Adams’s contention that what the committee granted was not a renewal but a new license. The learned chairman had sworn in one paragraph that a renewal was granted, and he swore in another paragraph that a new license was granted, but he could not juggle with Air O’Brien’s rights in that way. The question of a “reasonable time” for rebuilding was, he suggested, a matter for the committee, which had not yet addressed itself to it. He contended that the committee had not a clear mind on the subject of the reasons for refusal, and so left it open that it could take refuge behind any of the 11 legal points that had been raised. His Honor intimated that he would take time to consider his decision, and the court rose at 10 minutes past five.