WINE AND SPIRIT LICENSE

Taranaki Daily News, 12 July 1929, Page 14

WINE AND SPIRIT LICENSE

WAITARA OR NEW PLYMOUTH REQUEST FOR A CHANGE REFUSED. “NO VACANCY,” SAYS COMMITTEE. Licensing law in its relation to wholesalers’ licenses was fully discussed in New Plymouth yesterday, when the Licensing Committee refused an offer from John Francis McCarthy Devine, trading as Devine and Co., to surrender his license at Waitara in return for’ a renewal in New Plymouth. On the bench were Messrs. R. W. Tate, S.M. (chairman), C. E. Bellringer, J. S. S. Medley, J. S. Connett and W. J. Jenkins. Mr. P. Grey said he would act for G. E. Jago and Hardwicke and Robertson, the holders of a local wholesale license. MrQ.uilliam (for Devine): But he has no standing. The Act say the objector must appear personally. Mr. Tate said it would be better for Mr. Quilliam to go ahead and if the committee wanted to hear Mr. Grey he would be called afterwards.

Mr. Quilliam: That seems to indicate that it is unlikely you will want to hear him against the application. Mr. Tate: Oh, no. Not necessarily. His objection having been noted, Mr. Quilliam said that up to 1913 there were three wholesale licenses in the borough of New Plymouth, the population of which was then 7600. In 1929 there was only one license, though the population of the borough and urban area had increased to over 17,000. The growth of the town in the intervening period had been so remarkable that it -was a feature in the history of New Zealand. In the same number of years the population of Taranaki had increased from 51,500 to 69,500, representing an addition of nearly 20,000.

GROWTH OF POPULATION. With the growth of the port, New Plymouth was rapidly coming to be looked upon as the outlet for trade for the province and beyond, and Government departments had their offices in the town. These things represented advantages for businessmen. Though he did not like having to compare Waitara with New Plymouth, for the purposes of this application it was necessary for him to refer to the relative positions of the two towns. Since 1913 Waitara had increased its population from 1520 to 1825, or only SOO. Whatever one’s views were about it, the fact remained that the selling of liquor was at present a legitimate business and the principle of the Licensing Act had always been to see that it was carried on in a manner that best served the public interest. It could not possibly be contended that it would, not be in the public interest for Devine’s license to bo transferred to New Plymouth. There were so many advantages from a public point of view that it was unnecessary for him to point them out, continued Mr. Quilliam. The in-, specter himself had said police supervision could be carried out more satisfactorily in New Plymouth than in Waitara.

Mr. Quilliam went on to deal exhaustively with the history of the law relating to wholesale licenses. Section ■OlO of the 1908 Act said they might be granted at a meeting other than an annual meeting and there was no restriction on the number. In 1910 legislation made it impossible to increase the licenses in any district, but this application did not infringe that provsion. Section 91 of the Act said that objection to a license might be taken on the grounds that the applicant was of bad fame or character, that his premises were in need of repair, etc., but not one of these considerations could apply in this case. Section 103 gave the committee discretionaiy powers, but as there were no valid objections discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicant.

“UNIVERSAL PRACTICE.” Owing to the fact that a transfer of a wholesale license had not been provided for in the Act, Mr. Quilliam said they had to adopt an expedient in coming to the court. Thus they were prepared to surrender the license at Waitara and receive in its stead a new one at New Plymouth. That was the universal practice in New Zealand. Counsel went on to show that the committee was competent to grant the application between annual meetings. If it were held otherwise an absurd position would arise. Devine’s present license would not be valid and neither would Hardwicke and Robertson’s, because they were granted Goldwater’s license in March, and difficulties would arise when the license-holder died between the June annual meetings. The law did not contemplate such a difficult position. “An objection raised to the application for a transfer at the last annual meeting was that the interests of a rival might be affected,” said Mr. Quilliam. “I do not think I am overstating the position when I say that Your Worship contemptuously tossed the suggestion aside. I do not propose to elaborate that point because it is really beneath your notice.” In the event of the application being refused, counsel asked, in fairness to Devine, that the reasons should be made known so that he could decide what steps to take in the future. Mr. Tate said Mr. Quilliam’s remarks had interested him very much, and, no doubt, other members of the committee. The situation was that there was no vacancy as the Waitara license was still in force. This was not an application for a transfer but for a new license. In offering to surrender the present license counsel was practically bargaining with the committee. Referring to what the committee had done previously the chairman said that in those instances there was no other course to pursue and the interests of other persons were not concerned at present. Whether new licenses could be granted only at an annual meeting or by the chairman and two members was a point the committee would like to consider.

Mr. Quilliam: In effect we are doing just the same as when we came along for a sale or a transfer. There is nothing to prevent a wholesale license being moved from one part of the district to another.

Ho said he had now made the application in two forms. In the first form it had been thrown out by the committee at the adjourned meeting last week. Members of the committee were rising to leave the court when Mr. Grey asked to be heard as the mater was of considerable importance to his client. He

could quote authorities against Mr. Quilliam’s contentions. Mr. Tate: Well, we will discuss the situation and if we want to hear you we will call you. Mr. Grey: Then, sir, I shall reserve my right to address you. Mr. Tate (as ho was leaving the bench): *We appreciate your position and that of your client, but we have not decided whether you have any status. After the committee had returned tfl the court, Mr. Tate said: Dealing with section 91, we do not suggest that objection to the application is taken because of the bad fame or character of the applicant. We do not consider the granting of the license would be inimical to public interest in New Plymouth. We decide, further, that we will hot grant the application as there is no vacancy at present in the district. Further, if it is still desired, application should be made at an annual meeting when a vacancy is actually in existence We hope that these Will be sufficient reasons. Mr. Quilliam: Except, sir, that I applied at the last annual meeting and was refused. Mr. Tate: But you then applied fol a removal. ■ Mr. Quillin’" • No, sir, I did not