THE NEWTOWN DECISION,

Southland Times, Issue 19114, 3 August 1903, Page 2

THE NEWTOWN DECISION,

The Supreme Court, has now delivered judgment on the application for an order "compelling the Newtown ; Licensing Committee to : issue licenses. Tho decision is that no such order can be granted, and Prohibition 1 -therefore .wins tho day. As the matter is to be carried to a higher "tribunal the decisions cannot bo traversed, but a brief ..review of the events ,>|hat led^iip; H#y thfcl pvegmt,} position ■may be given. As will bo"romemßwed, the Newtown, poll, „at which nolicense was carried, was declared void on grounds' that; werje admitted-:, ly technical:' K/ But, though deprived of the fruits of their labours, the Prohibitionists held a strong position,, as section 3 of the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act, 1895, provides that <no license shall bo granted or renewed- until the electors have previously determined in favour of one or other, of the issues — no-license, reduction, . or. continuance, When a ! poll is declared void, then the 'result of section 8 would be that the decision of the previous poll held three years before .would still hold good as " tho previous determination." But this provision was defeated by the fact that the electoral boundaries' were altered last year, and consequently Newtown was an entirely new electorate, and there had teen no "previous determination '* in it. The Prohibitionist Licensing Committee who were elected then, maintained that they thus nad no power to grant licenses, and the' Court has upheld them.

The point urged by the other side was that section 8 of the 18&5 Act provides that where no proposal^ is carried , the existing licenses, sb^all continue (ii force* uritil next licensing "po'liY ? The' trade ami their supporters declared that, the voiding of the poll left the district in the position of haying, carried- no- proposal, and tKerefote' the existing ' licenses were good until 1905. A majority of the judges has decided Ytbat. this is not the- ; case .; - but y lt is noteworthy that two' judges out of five dissented ..from the judgfment of - the Courts His Honour M^. r '^ns^ce\^-j : vßennistoix.'' ; -u6m- , -mented " strongly ; on i,he ' carelessness of^YthetLiegi^atujro-in'not making provision for every • contingency under 3\v^cn^:poir might be declared void. "Thtis omission in the law Was pointed rout so^long-. back as three years ago Mr |WilH^^,f attd yet the 'defect was never reniedfed, Tbis^has been a very- grievous and . «xp£n£ive piece; of negligence. A very irnportant point -in Sir Robert Stout's st^ihent ; is that in his^"b"plnl6^-'sw'Eion' >i 's2' , or'the Act pf 1881 is still in force. This aempt' rtihsTthus:— lf from" any mis^ .charice or^ misadyenturei no determination is arrived 1 at, the Governor may appoint some other convenient day, being .not less than fourteen days previous^to the day appointed for the iueetihg- of the YLicensiiig Committee in June of the some ytarj for the holding of ~ another 'poll. If the Chief Justice is correct in his opinion, this would open up a way out of the difficulty.; but not, however.Yuotil riox^ygar,. since tiic day appointed must be '■* hot less than fourteen days previous to the- Juno meeting of the committed • An interesting argument may, bo expected on this point-*'' ■' "''- '■■ ■■' •'■''■" *£■<■ .-■-.'- :• -•