LICENSING LAWS

Taranaki Daily News, 8 June 1931, Page 7

LICENSING LAWS

ASHBURTON APPEAL CASE.

VISCOUNT DUNEDIN’S COMMENT.

In delivering the judgment of the Privy Council in the Ashburton Licensing Committee case (Joseph Scales v. Henry Aitken Young and others), Viscount Dunedin offered some interesting comment on the licensing legislation of New Zealand.

His Lordship briefly reviews the facts which led to the appeal being made. Of the legislation he remarks that “it has indeed been prolific,” and that “their Lordship" do not think it necessary to examine in detail this mass of statutes.” which had been done “with infinite patience and accuracy in the judgments of the Appeal Court.” After dealing shortly with the various statutes and their effect on the town of Ashburton when the district of Ashburton and Ellesmere were merged into Mid-Canterbury, the judgment says: “As to the next census, increase of licenses is only possible if there is an increase of population of more than 25 per cent, since the previous census. Putting aside, therefore, these methods of increase depending on a great increase of population— Which did not happen—it is quite clear it would have been impossible to grant a new license for the Somerset Hotel, because that would increase the number of existing licenses in Mid-Canterbury by one.

“Now;it is impossible to tell, or even, to speculate, what would have been the views of the electors residing in that part of Mid-Canterbury w’hich had formerly been Ashburton. They may haved shared the views of the majority in Ashburton, and wished their district to be , uo-license. On the other hand, they may have all along wished their district to be a licensed district, and been overborne by the outlying voters in the rural districts of Ashburton. On this latter assumption it Is clear that their case was from theirpoint of view a hard case. If the population of their portion/ had exceeded that of the Ellesmere portion, then the whole of Mid-Canterbury would have entered into life as a no-lieense district, but at the very first poll there would have been a vote on restoration which might have been carried. But as it was their ease was not dealt with in the statute. Their Lordships will not use the phrase casus omissus, because that means that the legislation has per incuriam allowed a lacuna in legislation to exist. But in view of the determined insistence of the prohibitionists the lacuna may have been left of set purpose. One of the learned judges in the Court of Appeal considers he has found a justification. Others have characterised the omission as an injustice. Their Lordships do not propose to tender any opinion on the Abject, which is one for the Legislature and not for them, but they are bound to remark that against what the learned judge urges in justification may well be set the remark that the whole legislation is supposed to rest on the will of the people a&jexpressed by vote, and at least the population of the Ashburton portion of Mid-Canterbury would have to suffer their fate in silence.”