BOTTLE LICENSES.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume VI, Issue 305, 28 May 1896, Page 10

BOTTLE LICENSES.

It is very unfortunate that the Government are seemingly not able to have acts of Parliament drafted so that the intention of the Legislature \ may be intelligible, and the provisions not open to more than one interpretation. The law officers of the Crown are presumably responsible that Bills, after passing both Houses of the Legislature, should.not be submitted to the Governor for his assent until it has been ascertained by critical examination that the several clauses are consistent with each other and with the whole, and are not at. variance with existing statute law, which it is not purported to be repealed. This duty, however, is notoriously carried out in a very perfunctory manner, with the consequence

that in many important branches of the law neither the adminstrators nor the general public and those immediately concerned, know exactly where they are. Grave trouble, inconvenience, and costly litigation, are liable to ensue, and, as a matter of fact, do occur, whilst the element of uncertainty induces a want of confidence in .the administration of justice, which, for obvious reasons, is much to be deplored. Early next' month the annual licensing meetings are to be held, and in Otago the question of bottle licenses is certain to be a burning one, since, despite the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act Amendment Act, 1895, holders of these licenses have lodged, applications for renewal. Section 18 of the Act declares that “no new bottle license shall be granted within any licensing district after the commencement of this Act. All such licenses in force at the commencement of the Act shall continue in force until their expiry on the 30th June then next ensuing.” The intention, presumably, is to abolish bottle licenses altogether, which, it must be remembered, have never been granted except in the provincial districts of Nelson and Otago, wherein, previously to the passing of the Licensing Act, 1881, the issue of such licenses was authorised by law. It is contended and the contention is said to be supported by high legal authority—that under the wording of the clause, the Licensing Committee have no option, but to grant renewals to the applicants. What appears to be relied upon is the term “new bottle license,” that refers only to licenses granted subsequently to the Act of 1881, and does not affect licenses granted,. prior to that Act comiug into force. Technically speaking, and the language of Acts of Parliament must needs be interpreted literally,, every license issued upon an application for renewal is a “new license” granting authority to sell liquor under certain conditions for a definite, period; and there is but doubtful force.in the., argument that the words “ new license in then Act of last year apply only to licenses originally issued previously to 1881. The adjective seemingly is purely surplusage, and its introduction creates ambiguity, which should also be avoided.. Bottle license holders, it is reported, further rely upon the provision of the Act of 1893, to the. effect that whenever a license is granted after the: taking of a poll in any district the licensee shall have the right of annual renewal " for the two years succeeding the original grant thereof until the taking of the next poll.” We do not see that this has any bearing on the case, since, although the wording is somewhat obscure and capable of more than one interpretation, the clause is practically repealed so • far as bottle licenses are concerned, by the Act of 1895. The Bill of last session was with great difficulty passed through the Legislature, owing to serious differences between the two Houses as to certain of its provisions, and the. form in which it became law was the result of a compromise arrived at after three conferences between the Houses. It is notable as throwing light upon the intention of the Legislature that the clause affecting bottle licenses was one of those in dispute. As the Bill was originally drafted the clause read: “No new bottle licenses or New Zealandlwine licenses, shall be granted within any licensing district after the commencement of the Act shall continue in force ; untiltheir expiry on the 30th June then next ensuing, and may be renewed by the licensing committee from time to time until the licensing poll next after such expiry be taken, but thereafter shall not be renewed.” The clause was struck out altogether by the Legislative Council, and was restored by the conference with the excision of the words “ New Zealand wine licenses” and all the words that we have given in italics. There cannot, therefore, we conceive, be reasonably a doubt as to the deliberate intention of the Legislature that there should be no bottle licenses in any part of the colony after June 30. 1896. The question has been raised as to the issue of wholesale licenses to the present holders of bottle licenses. To this there does not appear to be any legal objection, since wholesale licenses have not been touched by either the legislation of 1893 or of 1895, but remain subject to the Licensing Act, 1881. —Dunedin Star.