LICENCE OPPOSED

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 842, 10 December 1929, Page 9

LICENCE OPPOSED

KAMO SPRINGS HOTEL ADJOURNED TILL FEBRUARY The action for the issue of a writ' of certiorari to quash the publican’s licence issued by the Marsden Licensing, Committee last June cannot now be 'heard until February, Mr. Justice Herdman decided today. The application was made by two electors—William Gwyn, of Kamo, and James Jackson, of Whangarei—against the Marsden Licensing Committee; Walter Ilenry Cuthbert, the licensee; the Whangarei Hospital Board, as owners; and J. F. W. Hickson as the prospective purchaser. The proceedings were based on the ground that the committee had no jurisdiction to issue the licence, because no licence in the committee’s district had been forfeited, had lapsed, or had not been renewed between the two last annual meetings of the committee.

Mr. Tuck, for the plaintiffs, said thu.t the challenge to the committee’s action was based on the fact that the licence was not granted within the time limit allowed by sub-section 2 of section 30 of the Licensing Amendment Act, 1910. The affidavit of the clerk of the committee showed that no licence had been forfeited, had ceased to exist, or had not been renewed since the annual meeting in 1928. The last local option poll was taken in 1914, and after the last national poll at the end of last year all the licences then in existence were renewed. Mis Honour: 1 understand that this is an attempt to revive a licence that expired years ago? Mr. Tuck: I believe that is the committee’s justification for its action. The old licence lapsed in 1917. Mr. Richmond objected to the history of the case being traversed, because there was no evidence on affidavit before the court. Unless it could be shown that the committee had no jurisdiction to grant the licence, it must be assumed it had the power. His Honour declared there should have been an affidavit filed showing the history of the case, and also the fact that a certain number of licences existed prior to June 11 this year. He had not the least doubt that the committee had acted without jurisdiction, but essential information was not before him. It was a most unsatisfactory • way of bringing the matter before the court. He understood the licence had lapsed in 1917, and he wanted to know the ground on which the committee issued the licence last year.

Mr. Richmond contended that he should not have to meet a new cause of action at the last moment without due consideration.

His Honour, in adjourning the case said he could not hear it before February. It was a pity, he said, as the action should be heard at once, because if the licence was illegally granted the licensee was selling liquor illegally.