A SYDENHAM LICENSING CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4716, 7 August 1893, Page 3

A SYDENHAM LICENSING CASE.

■ — ♦ Proceedings in the Resident Magistrate's Court. At the Resident Magistrate's Court t)-day, before E. Beetham, Esq., R.M., Richard fladfield was charged that ho did, on July 20, 1893, on the premises known as the Crown Hotel, Sydenham, sell to one W. Rowe a quantity of intoxicating liquor, to wit, one flask of brandy. Mr Caygill appeared for the prosecution, and Mr George Harper for the defendant. Evidence having been given aB to the sale and purchase of the liquor, Mr Caygill put in the judgment of Mr Justice Denniston in the recent proceedings on the application for a writ of certiorari in respect of the decision of the Committee granting a license to the Crown Hotel. Evidence was also given as to the circumstances of the granting of the HcenEe, &c, of which particulars have already been made public. Mr Caygill then addressed the Bench, citing many cases in support. He contended that to bring a case of illegal liquoz selling was the proper proceeding to teet the validity of a license. In support of this contention he quoted particularly La w Reports, Exchequer Division, vol. i., p. 100; and Law Reports, Ireland, Common Law, page 167. The case of Regina v. Hamilton (7, Victorian Law Reports, caseß at Law, page 194) put, he said, the entire matter in a nutshell. This was a case in which it had been held that the magistrates had quashed licenses without authority. In the case now before the Court the licensee put in a document which, he said, was a license, but which the plaintiffs said was not a license, as it had been issued by a Committee having no authority. Section 159 of the Licensing Act was very clear, and it was under that section that the case had been brought. Mr Harper said the order of Mr Justice Denniston had simply ordered the license to bo quashed, but, as a matter of fact, the license had nob been quashed. Until that license was filed \n the Supreme Court and a pen line through it showing it to be destroyed, such a case as the present one could not be brought. The certificate should have been quashed in the Supreme Court, or it still continued to be in force. The writ of certiorari was simply and purely an order that the " license shall be quashed," and the mere making of that writ did not quash the license, but only gave permission to have it quashed. Mr Harper then cited Short and Mellor's Crown Practice, last edition, 1890, whioh gave the latest English practice. In New Zealand Law Reports there was, he said, a case which showed that until the writ was issued both , parties were bound to acknowledge merely the making of the order. It was against the Licensing Committee of the district of Invercargill North. An order for certiorari had been obtained and a copy served on the hotelkeeper, who had refused to close i his doors until the quashing took place, Counsel had argued that the publican , had refused to accept the ordei without the actual making of the writ, Mr Justice Williams had said thai he was not bound to a66epfc the writ/and Oonld continue to act under the license until it was absolutely quashed. Obtaining the order was only a step in the cause. When the writ was issued and served on 1 the Committee, ib was intended to take 1 active steps to appeal against the order granting the making of the writ. The 1 Court would be asked to stop proceedings when that stage was reached. The order in this case only went so far that "the writ shall issue." At present the Court 1 had not put its pen through the license, it had only said it intended to do so. 1 Mr Harper submitted that the proceedings not having been completed, the Court 1 should respect the license and certificate. 1 Mr Caygill said the argument submitted by him had not been touched. His case depended upon his light of proceeding 1 on information alone. He disregarded the Supreme Court proceedings and his case ought to stand just as well without those proceedings as with them. Mr Beetham asked whether this matter was sub judice and in the hands of the Supreme Court or not ? This was what the defence held. Mr Caygill said the ca3e had been finished in the Supreme Court for the purpose of this information. Mr Beetham said the defence said no to this, and maintained its case thereon. Mr Caygill said he rested on the ground that the certificate was void and the purpose of these proceedings waß to test that. The case in the Supreme Court only provided them with the law on the subject. He relied on the case he had quoted (12 Law Reports, Ireland, Common Law). He also relied very strongly on the case in re Roach. They were entitled to come lo the Court to test the validity of the license as was shown in 4 New Zealand Law Reports. Mr Beetham said he would take time to consider. He presumed that were he to inflict a fine, both parties would like it to be over £5. Mr Harper and Mr Caygill agreed.