LICENSE REFUSED.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 September 1924, Page 5

LICENSE REFUSED.

AN UNUSUAL CASE, MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGS ISSUED AN INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT (From Our Own Reporter.) . . Hswar*, Sept. IS. A position almost unique in the w' nals of Hcenaing business in Now Zealand has arisen in connection with the application of a license for the Railwav Hotel, Waitotara, by Isabella Nailoon The Patea Licensing Committee, sitting at Hawera to-day, refused to granta license on the grounds that the building was out of repair, according to th» police reports, and counsel for th» owner of the hotel has signified hie fritention of commencing mandamus proceedings against the licensing committee in an endeavour to compel the isnie of a license by the higher court. The -application had been considered by several adjourned annual meetings. The Bench to-day consisted of Messrs. J. 8. Barton, S.M. (chairman), E. Dixon, H. Graves, E. A. Pacey, and C. J. Hawken. Mr. P. O’Dea appeared for the owner of the hotel (James Stellin) and Mr. E. Beechey for the applicant. Mr. Beechey intimated that since the last meeting the hotel had been aold by P. A. Zohrab to Stellia. Mr. O’Dea said this was so, and the building was in repair, but Stellin w»s prepared to do anything further that the committee might require and a*tiafy Mr. Duflll or any other architect. Stellin had given a free hand to the architect to do whatever work was necessary. The chairman asked whether Mr. O’Dea conridered Stellin a fit and proper person to hold a license. Mr. O’Dea said Stellin waa not apply ing for a license; ho was only the owner of the freehold. Mr. Barton said tho committee would not hear any further evidence, having previously completed the bearing, and the committee then retired.

On returning Mr. Barton announced that the committee had decided to refuse the license, holding that the pisewas out of repair, under section 108 of the Licensing Act, according to the police report. Mr- O'Dea asked if the chairman had informed the other members of the committee that they were personally liable if mandamus proceedings to compe’ the issue of a license were unsuccessful. The committee would be liable for both damages and costs. Mr. Barton said he had not so Informed the committee, but he himself would also be liable. He did not think the higher court would override the discretion of the licensing committee. Mr. O'Dea Raid that was for the higher court to decide. Were all the members of the committee unanimous in the decision?

Mr Barton said Mr. O’Dea was not entitled to ask that question, but be would say that the committee were unanimous.

It is understood Mr, O'Dea has already commenced mandamus proceedings against the Patea Licensing Committee in an endeavour to compel the issue of the license asked for by tho higher court.