A SYDENHAM LICENSING CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4676, 21 June 1893, Page 3

A SYDENHAM LICENSING CASE.

Proceedings in the Supreme Court. THIS DAT. At the sitting in Banco of the Supreme Court, before, hw Honor Mr Justice Denniston this morning, Mr Fisher moved for _an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the old Sjdenham Licencing Committee in refusing to grant an hotelkeeper's license to Charles Frederiok Money. He stated that it had been agreed by the six parties who had applied for licenses to the Committee that the decision obtained in one case should govern each. When the licensing district; of Sydenhain had been divided by Gazette proclamation (after petition) into four wards the old Committee had not been removed, although its district had been abolished. The four new districts had been constituted on March 20, 1892. After Mr Fisher had entered into the detaile of the case, his Honor said the other eide was not represented, and he would have liked to have heard what was to be said on that side. He did not understand the delay that had taken place in bringing the case into Court. They had waited until the old Committee had ceaeed to exiat. Mr Fisher said that costs had been avoided, and, besides this end other technical reasons, until the old Committee had ceased to exist the applicants could not say that their licenses had been refused by a Court not having competent jurisdiction. After further discussion, his Honor said that the special circumstances of the case would excuse the delay. He did not want to express an opinion on the case itself, but held that the decision of the Court of Appeal was intended to . goto the root of the whole proceedings of the old Committee with respect to licensing. Practically it would rule their decisions on the subject of licensing, and render these liable to be removed and quashed. He would take time to coneider whether the present application ought to have been brought to the Court sooner, for the benefit of the Court of Appeal. He would also consider whether the question of delay should preclude him from granting the applying party relief.