The Wanganui Chronicle, AND PATRA-RANGITIKEI ADVERTISER. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1891.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXIII, Issue 11277, 26 May 1891, Page 2

The Wanganui Chronicle, AND PATRA-RANGITIKEI ADVERTISER. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1891.

There are still people to be'found who doubt whether licensing committees have the. power to refuse the renewal of publicans' licenses in cases -where no fault is found with the manner in which the houses have been conducted. The final decision in the Home case, Sharpe v. Wakefield, which we published on Saturday, should set the question for ever at rest. In New Zealand the decisions of the licensing benches have on several occasions been appealed against, but the ruling of the Supreme Court Judges has invariably been in their favour, except incases where they have failed to observe the, forms and technicalities required by the Act. __ A. licensing committee has absolute power to grant or. refuse any number of licenses, provided it goes about its business in manner prescribed, by law. There is, of conrse, the one weli-understood limitation — that where, by the local option vote, the ratepayers have declared against the granting of any more licenses, the committees' hands ai-e tied ; and ! where the ratepayers' vote has affirmed that more licenses may be granted, it is still within the discretion of the committee to grant or refuse further applications, as they may see fit. The Wanganni ratepayers have placed their veto upon the issue, of any more licenses ; and a majority of the committee elected have, been returned upon the distinct understanding that they are to move in the direction of closing at least five of the existing houses. The committee must, however, hear every applicant, and consider every case on its merits, and grant or refuse the application according as they think the house is, or is not, needed in the locality. The committee's power to close as many houses as they think are not needed is, as we hare said, absolute. There is no authority by which they can he restrained. A very important

questiou, however, has be6ri raised, as to whether any committee would be entitled to close every house in a district, every member of such committee having been elected on*a distinct pledge so to do. It is contended on the one hard that the membei's, having been elected on a " platform " ratified by the ratepayers, have their sanction and approval in what they px'opose to do. On the other hand it is argued that the committee is a judicial body, and that the very fact of the members having given a pledge beforehand to close every house, prevents them from giving a fair and legitimate consideration to the evidence brought forward in favour of any. It is held that a committee can no more pledge themselves beforehand to close any particular house, or the whole number of houses, in a district, than a bench of justices can pledge themselves to convict a person, accused of an offence against'the law, before hearing the evidence against Mm. The argument does not apply to a proportionate number of hotels, where no particular house is marked, because in making the reduction every application may "still be considered on its merite. We think it not at all unlikely that the power of a committee to entirely prohibit, under cirIcumstauces such, as we have men- | fcioned, will be tested in the highest courts of the colony.