LICENSING COMMITTEE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIII, Issue 137, 2 July 1901, Page 2

LICENSING COMMITTEE.

. MONDAY, Ist JULY. Mn. Stanfokd, S.M., held a sitting on licensing bu-irecs at 10.30 a.m. lathe mitfevi.'f the application of John B-ennan, Josrph S. j arle, and J.-i-miah O'D-iscdl, Mr. Stanford de liverid a written decision on the ap plications as follows : - I find mysalf in a somewhat anomalous position in having t--&*A witli the e apidicitions, because owing to the apatby or care-'es-icess of ithe electors no committehas b en elee'ed to shars my re jporisibility. Usually the odium and abuso which appoars insepirabl) from any decision on- such a pjint as this is shared among five representatives; ihrough ciuses beyond ray control I have to-day to tnonop Jise the whole. I should have thought a certain forbearance and consideration might have been shown me under the e'reumstaaces, and that such has not been the ose is, I think, to be regretted. Strenuous efforts have been made by underhand and illegitimate means to aff jet my decision, not I think - by the respectable portion of the public, but by a few interested persons. During he pastT*few montln I have received

quite 'a number of more or less anonymous coaimunictions on th-> •mbjeet of thes» app l; c;it'oas couched in somewhat threi'ening phrases informing me, inter al.'a, that the Government, and more especially the Piemier, were (1) averse to thefe applications being granted ; (2) strongly in favour of these applications being gr*n r ed ; and (3) indifferent :& ta whether th'-y were granted or not. I on'y refer to th-.se wretch-"d attempt 'o infi nee mv ju.liei.l action b cau-.e I wis t> >ay that n ithtrdirec ly n ;i----ii.dir ct.ly i-.ve I received any sugg st'on, h Ht, or remirkof any kin J from -■be Premier, the Ministers of Justice and Ra 1 »-.y;, o.- any member' of the Go>'n i-wi.ntfi- m whi-h it-c nil possibly be sa'.d. 'hat ihay ha ! nnv opiui n of any kind on the subje t of g an'iiig |or refusing theso applicatioiiS. The [■main Kg*l argumsnt which was addrersod to me at the bearing, in minatory accents and with a somewhat monoto. on« r verity of diction was thif, tha 1 ' if I g» anted th.se applications I should be sanctioning "aa ovasion of the 1-w " and lenoing my approval to a "fr.iud on the Act," or not "curving o'rt tha spirit and inten ion of the \et." I pro ecd to ami; so this statement, and ,«ee what it re illy m^ans. T. e inrai ing, I take it, of these mere rbitr.iry ph ii.to other lani{im»e, ; s, that if I gr:n,t ' i ns I -shull be a'iding to and reading nto the Act something »vhich the Legislature has no 1 ; put in, or ontbe ther hand, leaving out and omitting something from thu Act which the L-»gi-lature has put in ; or possibly that lam mi-interpre'ing the meaning of r .he words Betuilly used. analy-'s xhausts the words so insis'ently used, *'vi.., "fr.ud on the Act." Now it is pri e cloarthat in The Alcoholic Liquor Hales Act of 1895, the Legis'ature at!' ctuilly stopped the facile and cis"orjuaiy prac'iceof "removal" whict> -rad hitherto ben practised. Before that Actoa the payment of a sma'l fee the Bsneh by order, could, and hahitd'd, sanction the remov.il of a 'icense from o-'e locality to ano'her. The applicant ran no risk, incurred but little expanse, and as a rula tbe pablic .took but little interest. The-Legis'a- [ ure by subs-ction 4, of section 22, of the Act of 1895, put a stop to this for reasons which en in ro way affect my lecisiqo, arid into nh'ch I am not concerned to enquire. There was, however, another way of obtaining a license wb.6te it was really r quirtd by the public without increisiogtbeaggrogaty number of lie ns is issue! in a district. Tne adoption of this proc dure is denounced as a "fraud on the Act" and C am rtaliy and in effect asked to supplement the labours of the Legislature and add to the Licensing Act some

such chuse as this: "from aud after the pissing of this Act whfn a licence bas been allowed ro lapse or bi en re t'u.-ed no new license sh-dl be granted by any Committee until a poll has been taften." I must fh;cline to accede to a request which in my opinion does reilly amount to asking me to commit a " fraud on the Act." tmdgc—made law hr>s ben tbe

•iubjoct of much sharp ciitici-m, but ning'strate male Kw woubl ''eintolor•ble. ■' Optima es. lex qure minimum relinquit arbitrio judicis, optimus judex qui minimum s'bi" (B icon's Aphori-ms). It miy of>en frapp n that 1 do not agree with t'-ie law I hive to administer - , but I nev r have and •iever sdia'l nt'emp'' to men! it by my Incisions. My p-ovince is, " jus diceie non jus dare." As regiids the areument of d-spair tbat to do s> and so

would bo agait'S 1 "- the spirit a'id intentions of tfce A'it, Maxvv-11 on the Interpretation cf Statues, p. 7, pats the ma't<>r vry clearly :—" A (Jju.-t is rot liberty to speculate on the i rten'i.m of tho Legislature, eV-., and to coast! ue f.ho wo' Cis to i's own not ; o -is .of «rh tt ou ,hfc to hava been enac':ed," "the business of the interpreter is not to impove thi sta'nte, it is to rxpouii it," " tho quesion for him is not what jtho. Legislature moon l -, but what its | language means, wra 1- . it has ea : d it |uie(ut." Tno dii'hitities for these p'abflinen'-s ugroupj.l as f.bove or p. 7. It W"B ile.i ly (pen tn iny member lof Jhe public v.hi s w a IL-rns-d i house w.smu-h n;>ded in my Iccality! to buy an exis iug lice' s d houv, s irre< dir tho lie nse, and apply for n new \ !icer:ST to he g'aited in thn disrirt 1 where he thought it n-as bully nese'ed I Such a per o'i bought a privilege, then ! surrcn h r d i', and ran a'l risks of gatting any rqu'valent rc-tu n f r his out-! lay. M»e th.n that, he would have' to expend a la' ge Vum ou tew build- ■ ings in the h"pe, mora or I. sii-emot- ! tlias Iv, out of the whole competiig' publi •, would b.: sticeesrsf ul in hw appli- j cation. There »re now actu dly tire > ' •ipplications' before me Lr iha omJ lie n<e wiich Mr O'Drisco'l allowed to laps". Thi-i procedure, with all its a'tsu'lant risks, the Leginlatur> fas not -leal*; wi:h jn ai.y way. A gird de-.l ens sa'd at the hfluri'jg bs to the fa I nuraVr of licenses poi mi t d by law t-eii g in exisrtnoa when the tpp'ication f.r a new licensa was lodged with tie cleik, and it wasa. guei th.t h s Court h-.d ro jurisdiction to htar jtho application, because (ho.e was ro I withd'rtwal of an application for a r.> li.o.va! u-itil af or >h« hearing had I bo.-,un. This argument appea' sto uie I t'j be rased c.n a fall xy, as a co fu-ion

ide.'.s betwt-ea the application for a lic3i.se th'i gran 1 ; of a license ]'«» rhe Alcoholic Liquor Salt a Ocntrol Act, 1893, sec ions 14,19, and 23, the words us'jd aw "rtnewal or gran l , of a licecs'," and the is silent altogether ps -o an app'ication teingm.de. Heiv, again, I am asked (o alter and amend the Act —to add a ulau-o to it which tho Lagisla 1 lu'd hat, not seen fit to put iu, and I rie dine to do so. An application is one thing, a grant is quite

another, and it appears to me almost ridiculous to »>k me to improve upon the legislation on the liquor question, a task quite outside my province Why should I bo asked to alter the statutory enactment of Parliament so as to mike it nr an what certain interested persons would wi'h it to moan ? Another matter if mixed law and foot was argued, n tmely, that on May 16, tha*: is 22 day* b. fo-e 'ho bearing of tbesa applications, one of the premifes app'ied for, that of the Commonwealth (being in a borough) whs not in conformity with the requirement 9 of *be Act. I have no difficulty aft®r awing the evidence in decidin? that th ornvisions of section 38, of the Ao' ; °f 1881, wer» complied with on M a y 16, there being then nine rooms and I determine this as a matter of fact. I miy add thai I piwonal'y in spsc'ed the Chcomonwealth premis sin question in tha middle of May, and again this morning, when I found 23 rooms ups f airs completed and furnished • The same confusion of ideis appears t-' exist as to an application for and a grant of a licence. Premises must comply with seat ion 38 when the license is granted; there is noibing in the A?t to show they must si comply when the application is made. Since hearing the application I hi vo been f officially ioformod by Dr. Firdlay that the case of R'gini| v. Thornton (on which rested his entire argument as tj " a fraud on the i Act") ha s ! been ovir-ruled. I was awaro of this while the argument was proceeding, but had not the requisite| reference before me, nevertheless I hive to think learned counsd for his route y in informing me. In tho c-se of Licnnand Co., Ltd., and Thornton and others, <h : s bjing the s.me case referred to by cuine', hut on appeal from the in Regina v.\ Th rn' oh to tho of Lords, four' Law Lords unanimously arrived «t the conclusion that the mde'- sppeal'dfrom be revved. Lrd M risstited the whole ma'tr very fl ally, He said : " Why is it to bo IMd »s ngainst th«i Magistrates tha- t : ev maie an order which th. y did uo- tnako for a removal under s ct'on 50, be ause, forsooth, th > consequ-nees may bo practically the same as if that proceeding hid been takun? That is a matter for legisla lation. Suffice it to say tbis is not a case of removal, If it were i.o' for the very great which I have for the Cour's that have decided the opposite I should have said that it wis a very plain<• s) indeed." Toif, I think, disposfs of the whole so-calhd lawargu-j ment. Coming now to the evidence which is be c o"e me. I de-U first with the two nv morials, if, indeed they can be called ' vidence in any accurate or legal ser.se of the word. These documents are statutory in their chuacter, and enable objectors to appear by counsel as well ns personally, while they al*o must give notice to the other side of all objec'ioDS ; but they have no statutory value whatever, r-nde>'ing thsru »vidarce ; as a matte" - of fac 1 ; 'hey are net even evidunce of the f-tcfc that tbo-?e wbose lignaturr's are apparency attached t) the memorial over saw that document at all, s : nce no witnesses name appens, while there is intarnil evidenc, derived from a compari-orjj of handwritifig, that in several instances one hand wro'e mo-e th«n one of the so-called signa'u-es I drew attention at the hearing to the fact that neither memo-ial was in conformity with the requirements of the Act and I m'ght on that ground hive disregarded them altogether, but as an net of grac, and to emble counsel for obj ctors to be heard, I a'lowed memotids to bej .received. It is a matter for comment that not even one of those p.-rsons' whose namj purports fcj npp.'ar oa the memorials appeared in Ceurt to give evidenoe on oath. It wai therefore imposible to pnqu'r.-> as to the authentici'y of the s'gnatures, the reasons on which their objections were baseJ, or the opportunities tbey vo of forming an opinion nt all. Tin value of the memorials as evidencing opinion generally wns thus reduced to nil. In Augus 1 -. of last year I req"ered the Secant of Police, who is also Inspector of licensed houses, to repo.t to me whether a new hotel opposite the railway station was required for the accommodation of the public. I recieveil the following r-.port 'from him, dated August 23, 1900: " I consider the pla ie mentioned in tha attached lett r well ad'pted as a rtite for a go >d hotel to be built, and a go:>d la gi and conven : ent in th« place referred to in this lottor, opposite the railvay station at New Plymouth, would bo a great boon to the travelling public and particularly .to those who arrive by st»am*rs in the morningsand have to continue on thoir journey by train, al c o that at pr- sent there is no' suffi ient lv-.t<d accoramod-ition in New Plymoith for tho trivel'ingpublic,ai.d another ho'el in tho town is mush needed.—Martin Saopoole, S ireeant of

A of tie number of licensed louses he r e to the papulation showed that New Plymouth had les» hotsl accommodation than any other town in Ta-araki, and tlv's to an extent whieh was remarkable indeed amounting in pooh cas s to a quarter and in one f o half the hotel ncco uraodation elsewhere. The applicant, Mr. O'Hriscoll, brought into C wt 18 wit- j npss p, including the CI rk of the Court, a law clerk, the contractor for tho new' building, thi sin of applicant, at d the) secretary for the Licensed Vic'ua'lers' A-wciation, who all gave more or less form .1 and technical eviJer.c. There wore then 13 witnesses, of whom 12 give di-ec 1 : testimony that mor.i hotel accommodation was badly nes>dd in | Ne>v Plymouth, The remaining witness w.is the Sorgeant of Polce, . offi 'iul lerort I bave already stated, but I whose evider.ca iu Court wasfarles , strong. In more or !e-s eupha'ic kuguaro theso 12 witnesses one a'.d a'l ro oun'ed the serious ir convenience to ; which they had rvpeitelly beon put by | teing refus d accomra'-.dati'Jn by all ih* ho'els in New Plymouth. One, a lady who had from Pa'mei'Btfu North, described how she had to gi to a friend sotnotwo miles in tho country becau&e she was ro'usrd at all the hotfh in New Piymoutb. The Mayor of Hawerasaid that po; sonally ho had been ab'e ti get accommodation, bul those travelling with him had difficulty: « I do not think there is any reasonable doubt more ho'el accommodation is lequirtd herein New Plymou'h," One faitner stated ti at he and his neighbiurs tad given up coming into town, beeiuse of tho ditli u'ty they h -d in g- t'ing hotel iwcoramoda'ion in.New Plymouth, and fiat his son had had to wjik abo»t the s'nets all night, whilo ho had to go to Irglowood for a bad. At.otherfarmer, rosidyn!; 30 mi'o3 a.vay, descrihod how ho, his ti'rigbbour, and son h.d failed to g--t aootmmcda'ion in New Plymouth hi-tels ; he bimsalf tog.if ur miles to B 11 Block, his eo-i to a frhnd'a liouae, and his ceighbour to the police! tfcitio -. TwoG.ivernuwri'; clliuia'a, >h<i] ly:al stutiounias'.er aod hia loamdu,. gave strong evidence that increased J hotel accommodation is much naeded.

The s'atiminas'ei-, who had been only ' thr e months here, laid that already on two orcisions he had been appealed to give permission to people, who told him thoy had been refused at all the hotel", to elepp in the railway carriages. The foreman described the difficulty he bad himself bjm in. Two livery stab'ekcepers and one expressman gave evidence as to the necesity for more hotel accommodation. A resident iu Hiwera told the same story how both he and his employee had found it impossible to find accommodation at ho-els in New Plymouth. There were two witnesses who if p->subl», even mora emphatic. The agent for the Northern S.S. Company 8 lid that when steamers' were weather-bound he had gone round -own with passengers who had difficulty in finding accommodation, and on other occasions more accommodation was needed. A general dealer gave the following evidence: —"I say there is not kufficient accommeda'i n here. 1 say this from experience, and from my own pocket. I don't think the accommoditonis sufficient apart from race dayi?, etc, because I have repeatedly to take in persons becausa they cunnoget accem oiodation in the hotels. They were raepcctable persons. I have been round wi"ih the people, and have been t > the Sergeant of Police to assist me, and h-.d to beg the stationmas'er to tike in some. Ten yeirs ago th<-re were two mow hotels than there are now." This evidence was so strong and convincing thit it was.only attempted to be met by what I fe 1 I must characterise as a most improper attempt on tho pirt of the counsel for the objectors to rake up«ome trumpery assault case of 25 yean ago in wh'ch witness was concerned, an attornpt which I immediately (topped. It is hardly necessary fr» comment on the" only species of reply which was attempted to be made to the large array of witnesses for applicant. This wa< ihit pressuro on hotel accommodation at New Plymouth was only felt at "abnormal times," e.g., Christmas, New Year, Easter, race wre'k, and show week. Those cm hardly be called " abil timos " since they cccurr annually and occupy at le*st one month cut of every twelve. lam not prepired to lay down any absolute mle as to Whether ho'el* shou'd provide full accommodation at such periods as I have named; but some per.ion of the increased number of travellers should, I sbo'il'l say, be provided for. It, U difficult to s e how a more or»diub'e aud credible, as w II as thoroughly r- presentatrw, array of witnesses could have b ea brought together. Their evidence was simply overwhe'ming an* irresi-ttible. Even counsel for the objectors had to congratulate them on their excellence. Ponderantur testes non momeranlur —"Best on Evidence" —is a sound legal maxim; In opposition to th:se twelve witnts-e* the objectors brought f-ir ward thecleik of the CriWbn Hot.*!, who said that on the day mmed by tne Mayor of Hawera as being the one when he found the Criterion quite full, the books of the ho el sr.oved some empy beds. He added that he bad no person*) knowledge cf the matter otht-r than tbe bwks he k'pt. '' It is a mitter for commeut that not one of tbe memorialis s we; e examined, nor one hotelkeeper (though counsel in his opening address announced that he prop sel to put all six in tbe witness-box); not one lodg-inghouse-keeper. Witu regird to tho application of Mr. Breonan for a license for a fovtr-io med cottage at Bel Block, I have bten »bh t-i persuade myself that the application was seriously inte-. ded; at any rate, I no* - , a-< at the hearing, dtclire that tbi* application is refused, the house being teo tin-ill. I have, then, b fora me only two applications for a new license—one from Mr. j S arle for the Jubi'ee Vila, and one fr-m Mr. O'Drb-coll for the Hot 1 Commonwealth. Taking Mr. S arl«'e application drat, the Jubile> Villa h as present a lodgisg h:use, and granting a licence to ic would in no way give increased aco'-n----modation 11 tbe public, which tbe evidence shows is so mu h needed ; to »rant this application « euld merely be to give incre sad facilities for obtaining alcoholic liquor, and there is no eviden o that such increwed facilitiei are requited. Phos were submitted of a prop.>sed enlargement if the license Wi-r« granted, which would add a large number of bedrooms for the accommodation of the publ c, but this enlargement; was by way d addng a tbi.d s orey tOjjth: present bui diog. I o&rlatnly no circumstances will grant a ntw licenfe to any wcod:n buddinguf three ttorie.-". Where such already exist Ido not feat justfLd iu interfering, but I will sanction no addi.ioa to tbe numb rof threi storied wooden hotels. If it is propped to rebuild or add to any woodin hotel by way of a thiid wood-n stor>y the wild* mu*t b* erected iu tome non inflammable mater al. For tho abovj reason I refuse tae ii ensu applied for for the Jubilee Villi. Tt:e ipplication of Mr. O'D.Lcoll for a l.cense for tbe Hotel Oouaraoiwealth is gr.nted. The bui ding is in al res pec ssuitiblr, whild the site s the best possible. Ido non pr 'pose w m*k<9 any order as to costs unier sac ion 64 of t-e Licensing Act, 1881. Such an order could not be eufo-cei agains*. anyone iu my opini n, became, for the tea-on-I have already given, no oue o jector u legally befo;e the Court. The*e expenses cau readily be oraputed, aud probably when the masier g..es ti a superior Court will bi adlei to the cos-s in thai Court.

Mr. Baker contended that the app'l cant was fairly en it ed socost*.

His Worship: I entirely ngrce with you. I c..n only characterise <ho conduct of thu objoctors as disgauetfui. To rais't o'>j ctious an 1 produce no evid«t,ce in support was disgracoful conduCi.

Mr. Baker said he was glad hit Worship agreed. His c ient had brea to the expanse of f-tchiug witnesses from all over the ilistrics. He asked th*i the question bj held ovu\ His Worship: It had be:t-r be held over.

Mr. Weston: Your WoigUp stated that the petition! were inioiuii), and th*t it was only by an a'ot of giace that counsel for the roeinoriali ts wtTf heard. Subsequently Mr, W<s oa inti mated tha". be did ijOj propose to ask' for co^ts.

The m-it'ei- will now be brought b» fore the Supreme Court. he Tvrmicus Heel. -Mr. Weston Hbked for a cetiScate tj is»ue subje.t toagtlleiy b.ing erected on the St. Aubyn-streoi; Iroutige. His Worship consented, and said a gallery would bo quite sufficient. he Whita Hart.—Mr. We»tin nude a similar application—the licease to be subject to a gallery or verandah irecttd on the Devon and Queen s'lveia frontages, plats to be a.ui'.'uted to bit Woi'allip. He Imp.rial.—Mr. Govetta&kcd th.t the ceitificite be is>ued s-ibject to the building btiag m-icio Sitisfautory or lehuilo. ! Ilia Worship aaid ho would {.;raufc'

the renewal subject to tbeooudfeH Jle Taranaki.—On Mr. Samuel's application, the renewal was granted oo the same condition* as applied to tho Terminus Hotel.