WAS IT BIAS?

Taranaki Daily News, 29 September 1920, Page 5

WAS IT BIAS?

HOTEL LICENSE REFUSED. APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT. &J Telegraph.—Press Associatlol Auckland, Last Night. "Biassed" was what ' the Bay of Islands Licensing Committee was characterised as by Mr. J. R. Reed, K.C., at the Supreme Court this morning, when addressing Mr. Justice Salmond on behalf of the licensee and owners of the Duke of Marlborough Hotel at Russell, who asked for a writ of certiorari to quash the Bay of Islands Licensing Committee's order refusing them the renewal of their license, and for a writ of mandamus to the committee to grant a license, or to re-hear and determine the application for same.

The plaintiffs—John P. English (licensee), and Charlotte E. Tasker and ' Evelyn McConnell, both- of Thames j (owners of the hotel), were represented by Mr. Seed and Mr. McVeagli, The Licensing Committee, comprising Felix 11, Levjen, S.M., A. If. Morgan (Kaw'akawa), L. M. Lane (Totara North), J. Pearson (Peria), T. P. Hartley (Kohiikohu), and B. A. Hall (Kawakawa), was represented by Mr. B. P. Hunt. NEW HOTEI. WANTED. Mr. Reed said the plaintiffs (were not brewers or spirit merchants, as was usual in licensing cases, but were two women whose savings were invested in the hotel, which they purchased in 1915. On September 1, 1920, tlfe licensing com-, mittee took awav the license from the hotel, which was the only hotel in Russell. He contended that the committee was acting under bias, in that certain of its members had formed the view that it was essential that a new hotel should be erected ih Russell. They were not prepared to accept anything but a new hotel. Consequently, in approaching consideration of the question as t} whether the hotel was in a proper Rtate of repair, they had, he said, at the back of their minds the intention of insisting upon a new hotel, and therefore th?y were in a biassed state as to the extent that they were unable to examine the question of repair. Their bent of mind and their dominant idea was for a new hotel. In .Tune, 1919, they had publicly announced that if continuance was carried in December the hotel would require to be re-built. The committee had no -right to insist upon that. All they could do was to refuse a license if the hotel was so, out of repair that the committee considered none should be granted, In effect the defendant committee hßrl said, "We will not grant this license because you are not going to build a new hotel." Mr. Reed admitted that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction, to examine the evidence. There was no appeal from the committee's decision, but the point was whether the committee was really in such a judicial frame of mind to fairly consider the evidence with regard to the state of repair. His Honor: There are two distinct grounds possible, Jl) bias, and (2) that the committee did hot judicially determine the question at issue. Mr. Reed agreed. Dealing with Mr. Reed's argument, the Judge remarked that surely a judicial act coyld not be upset because a judge or a magistrate had an opinion on the matter before the hearing of the case, and maintained that opinion after the hearing of evidence. NO RIGHT OF APPEAL.

Mr. Reed contended that bias was a leaning of mind towards an object or vie\Vj_not leaving the mind indifferent. At a later stage, his Hon&r said it would take a lot of evidence to make him believe that the committee gave its decision first, and then heard evidence. He was being asked to quash a judicial decision practically on the ground that it was not given impartially. Bias did not mean partiality, but some disqualifying interest. Mr. Reed said Russell was a coming tourist resort, and evidently certain people considered its progress 'was being retarded through the lack of a good hotel.

His Honor: "You are asking me to send the case back to the c&mmittee, which you contend is disqualified." Mr. Reed: "That is the difficulty. There ought to be an appeal on law." 'His Honor said tlie simplest and straight-forward way of controlling such bodies was 'by appeal. As it was, there waß a difficulty* as to the control the Supreme Court had over them. Judgment was reserved.