The Licensed Victuallers' Gazette

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XX, Issue 1116, 31 August 1911, Page 20

The Licensed Victuallers' Gazette

. . (Copy.) MESSRS. ARTHUR CLEAVE AND COMPANY, LIMITED. Proprietors N.Z. Sport : ng and Dramatic Review, Licensed Victuallers’ Gazette. 1 Dear Sir, .4; At the Annual Meeting of the Licensed Victuallers’ Association of New Zealand, held on the 19th October, 1910, a resolution was unanimously adopted constituting the Sporting and Dramatic Review, the official organ of the Association for the Dominion. g ; H. J- WILLIAMS. $ secretary N.Z. L.V. Association. 'Wellington, October 20, 1910.

NATIONAL PROHIBITION. ' A PROBLEM FOR THE INNOCENTS. ; HOW THE LAW STANDS- ' A" Southern paper is responsible for the statement that there; are residents in the' their number is by no means inconsiderable —who believe that, if the advocates of National Prohibition are able at the approaching polls to persuade the requisite number of voters to vote for the abolition of the. liquor traffic,, they will be able to enjoy the .more or less easy conditions that exist under a system of local No-license. It is stated in certain quarters ; that some good honest(?) Prohibitionists have, persuaded them that that is the position. Writing to the “ Otago Daily Times’’ an elector says “there is much confusion of thought on the question. Many people, think they will be able to brew their own .ale for. consumption at home, or make wines from small or other fruits, or honey-meade, etc., for private consumption. What my friend would-like to . know is how his. aged parents, who have used dinner ale all their lives—and long and hearty lives at that —and been accustomed to the use, without abuse, of alcoholic liquors, and thousands like ,them, would fare were National Pro- - hibition in force. He asserts that such people could import, or’ make for ■ their own use. I say that, not being invalids, they and all similarly situ-, ated, would be absolutely barred from ’• obtaining alcholic liquor for use as a beverage.”

• • * THE POSITION EXPLAINED.

Commenting upon the letter and ", the statements the “Times” says: “It may, perhaps, serve to remove any ’ misapprehension that prevails on 'the .point if we quote the actual provisions of the licensing law that bear on the point. ■ Section 20 of the Act Of last session enacts that “on the coming info force of any determination in favour of National Prohibition all licenses' of' any description' then existing in New Zealand shall, unless sooner forfeited or. determined in due course ’ of law, continue in force for the respective /periods, for which they were respectively granted,’ and shall than lapse,” and -specifically declares that, while, any such determination remains in force, it shall not be lawful to grant any license for-.the sale of liquor. It is’ further provided in section 21 —and to the terms of this section ye direct especial attention- —that “at all?, times-while no licenses exist in New Zealand by virtue of any de-termination-in favour of National Prohibition, and while that determination remains in force, it shall be unlawful for any person to import into New

Zealand, or to manufacture, sell, or have in his possession for the purposes of sale, intoxicating liquor of . any description.” In the event,. there- 1 ■ fore, of the “ decision iof the electors ' being' in j-faypur ’of National Prohibition, ?;thpse residents the Dominion wixo hkvp-been accustomed, like those; mentioned’ by'buF correspondent, to

use, without abuse, alcoholic liquors Will apparently, unless their custom is to be abandoned, need to provide themselves with such a stock of the beverage they favour as will suffice for' their requirements for the rest of their lives or until a decision in favour of the restoration of licenses is arrived at. If it should be inconvenient for them to do this they will have to comfort themselves with the reflection that Prohibition is being enforced upon them in order that some other people may be debarred an indulgence which has been harmful to them and, through them, to their families.” “UNAUTHORISED EXPENDITURE.”

THE PAYMENT TO MESSRS. ADAMS BROS. THE "OTAGO DAILY TIMES” REVIEWS THE SITUATION. An anonymous correspondent having written,, to the “ Otago Daily Times” giving the Editor of that journal an “entirely independent and personal” view of the payment by the Government of £369 6s 6d out of “unauthorised expenditure” to Messrs. Adams Bros., of Dunedin, for “services in drafting Licensing Bill,” the “Times” thus comments on the matter:— “With a certain air of authority, however, he (the anonymous corres pondent) provides us with the interesting information that the Government, being desirous of introducing a Licensing Bill that should be as free as possible from the defects which have disfigured the licensing legislation of the past, and, at the same time, be an accurate expression, as far as possible, of the opinions and wishes of the majority of the electors, invited the help of Mr. A. S. Adams, “who spent many weeks in Welling-, ton assisting the Government and did not return to Dunedin till the Bill was safely through both Houses.” It will be seen that our correspondent possesses a very just estimate of the Government’s principles. The Government resolved to introduce a Licensing Bill, and, having arrived at that resolution, presumably because it considered there was a demand for the measure, it decided to invite Mr. A. S. Adams, who, we are told, “knows as well as any man in the country the wishes of the majority of the people” to provide it with the policy that should be .embodied in the Bill! This may or may not be an accurate statement of the case, but, if it is not accurate, it-is at any rate so completely illustrative of the methods of the Government that our correspondent may ■pardonably i have assumed its accuracy. We may, .however, point out' to our ‘ correspondent that he has fallen into error in at least one important particular. He asserts that. Mr. A. S. Adams, having been called to Wellington .to. draft a -Licensing Bill, remained there until he had seen the measure passed through both Houses • of Parliament. Mr. Adams was assuredly not. capable of performing such an achievement as that. For, ‘ 'the Licensing Bill which he .drafted has not yet seen the light of day. The Bill which was introduced last year ■ was, according to the Prime Minister, . who volunteered the information, as though there were .some special virtue in the circumstance, the Govern'.ment’s own' production. The Bill 'that was drafted by Mr. Adams was apparently that about which so much mystery was made —the Bill of the secret compact that was subsequently broken —in 1909. And that being so, the question arises, if Messrs. Adams Bros, were' tp be paid for any services J rendered to the Government by the ■ .’ principal .member of the firm,' why was a vote for the payment not placed on ~ the Estimates- in the-ordinary way- • last. year,-,-,so . that .the: Lower .House might have . had the< (opportunity of ■.> expressing its opinion on the matter;?

Among other things, the members might have desired to know upon what basis the charge of £369 6s 6d was made up. Our correspondent who informs us that the transaction was of the ordinary commercial character, appeals to two local King’s Counsels—one of whom is, unluckily, absent from the Dominion just now —to say what six week’s absence from his office, such as Mr. A. S. Adams seemingly had to submit to in this instance, would involve in loss of business. We are not exactly in a position to say what a barrister’s earnings in New Zealand are, but if they are at the rate of £369 6s 6d for six weeks — or £3200 per . annum —then we congratulate the leading members of the profession upon the lucrative nature of their calling. We imagine that our correspondent is less concerned to defend the Government in connection with the transaction than he is to deprive those who criticise the payment ip question “of a handy weapon to beat the no-license cause,” though we may assure him for our part that it had not occurred to us that it might be put to any such use. Certainly," however, “Scrutator” has done no service to the Government in his presentation of the case. And, in particular, he has done it a distinct disservice when he alleges that the Law Officers of the Crown, specially selected by the Attorney-general in order that their department might be strong and fully equipped in every respect, are “not experts in licensing legislation.” We may add that the cases which our correspondent has put, as allegedly analogous to that of the employment by the Government of Mr. A. S. Adams to draft a Bill for it, are really, as he will probably see on reflection, not in point. THE MAROPBU HOTEL, LICENSING COMMITTEE AT FAULT. A DECISION QUASHED. Sitting in Banco at Auckland on Saturday morning, His Honor Mr. Justice Edwards heard the case of Stanley Moore v. Maurice Harding Thomas Bassett, James Trounson, Thomas Richard Atkinson, and Gordon Coates. The plaintiff, Moore, was a publican, recently carrying on business at the Maropiu Hotel, and the defendants were the members of the Licensing Committee for the Kaipara district. " Plaintiff asked that a writ of certiorari directed to the defendants should issue for the purpose of quashing or setting aside their refusal to grant a renewal of plaintiff’s license of the Maropiu Hotel, and also that a writ of mandamus should be issued to the defendants Harding, Bassett, Atkinson, and Coates, ordering them to hear and determine, in conjunction with other' members of the committee, the plaintiff’s application for a renewal of his license. ■ The case for the plaintiff was that on June 6, 1911, which was the date of the annual meeting of the-• Kaipara Licensing Committee, and defendants Harding, Bassett, Trounson, and Atkinson, acting as members of the Licensing Committee, assembled for the purpose of hearing and determining matters in connection with the administration of the Licensing Act. After hearing evidence, they granted some applications, arid decided to hold over their decision in respect of the plaintiff’s case until June 27, in order that they might obtain legal advice as to their power to refuse plaintiff’s application,, in, view of the fact that “continuance” had been carried at the licensing poll held in the Kaipara licensing ; district in 1908. Plaintiff’s was that at the time of these meetings James ' Trounson- had ceased to permanently reside Ain the .Kaipara licensing district, yet., he : acted as member of the Licensing' Committee, and ■ purported. . - to exercise. ' the fund\tions of a member of that body ■ gt the meetings held pp i juriq. 6 and oh June 27,. On the last-nairiedfdate the coml ! . . : -■ . ; i ; ..A*-.'.’#;’- *.?.**•/ • •»-s. a • i

mittee refused to grant a renewal of the license for the Maropiu Hotel on the ground that the premises were not in a satisfactory state of repair. Plaintiff submitted that the proceedings of the Licensing Committee were void, because Mr. Trounson had left the district and had therefore lost his qualification to be a member of the Licensing Committee by ceasing to reside permanently in the licensing district, and consequently there was not a quorum present at the meetings of the committee.

The defence was a denial of the statement that Trounson was not a member of the Kaipara Licensing committee on June 6 of this year. It was admitted that he had acquired property elsewhere, and sometimes resided out of the district, but Mr. Reed contended that Trounson had not vacated his office as a member of the Kaipara Licensing Committee, for he had not ceased to permanently reside in the licensing district.” His Honor in delivering judgment on Monday said the plaintiff is a publican carrying on business at the Maropiu Hotel, Kaipara Licensing District, and the defendants members of the Kaipara Licensing Committee. On June 6 four members, including Jas. Trounson, sat at the quarterly meeting of the Kaipara Licensing Court, and on June 27, three members being then present, the application of plaintiff for renewal of his license w*as refused- It was claimed for the appellant that Trounson had ceased to be a member of the Committee by not residing permanently in the Kaipara district, and also that there was no quorum present on the second occasion. For the defence it was denied that Trounson had forfeited his seat, and that on June 27 the decision of the Court, arrived at on June 6, was given. His Honor’s judgment was of great length. In regard to the first point, he held that Mr. Trounson permanently resides at Northcote with his wife, although he pays frequent visits to Maropiu, and there resides in the house, which is the permanent residence of his daughter. It was not necessary only to determine that Mr. Trounson resided at Northcote. It was quite possible that a man might have two permanent residences in different parts of the country. If this was the case, each residence, might be permanent, but residence in either could not be permanent. Mr. Reed contended that the reading of the Act should be “permanently ceases to reside,” but his Honor was of opinion that Mr. Trounson was not qualified to act in the Kaipara Licensing District. In regard to the second point, after going extensively into the position, his Honor was of opinion that there could be no doubt that the applicant was entitled to have the ’adjudication formally announced in the presence of those adjudicating, and, therefore, it was impossible that the adjudication could stand. His Honor did not think it. necessary to consider the question of issuing of a writ of mandamus. He had held that Mr. Trounson was not qualified to sit on the Kaipara Licensing Committee, and he probably would now resign, and permit of another member being appointed. If not, the necessary steps could be taken. Meanwhile the plaintiff would be put to no disadvantage, as section 116 of the Licensing Act was to the effect that the license was deemed to be extended until the application was finally disposed of. The decision of the Committee was accordingly quashed. £2l costs were allowed.

Mr. R. McVeagh appeared for the appellant and Mr. J. R. Reed for respondents-