The North-Eastern Weekly Gazette. — 1888-05-05 (Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, England)

THE ATTSIIPTID TRIPLE MURDER AT DCNIME.—At Dundee on Tuesday James Young, labouier, was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment for Laing to drown his three childre+  WHY COMPENSATE? NOTWITHSTANDING the important decision  in the case of Sharp v. the Justices of Westmoreland, in which the Court of Queen's Bench has upheld the discretion  i of Justices n regard to the renewal of licenses, the Government have announced that they intend to proceed with the compensation clauses of the Local Government Bill. But it is evident from Mr Ritchie's statement on Tuesday night that the Government have seen fit entirely to change the grounds on which they mean to insist on compensating publicans for licenses refused by the licensing committees of the new County Councils. Mr Ritchie remarked: "He might say that the proposals in connection with the compensation clauses of the Local Government Bill were based upon what the Government considered were the equitable claims of those who now possessed  licenses." But this was not the ground on which he based the compensation clauses when he expounded his Bill. Then he professed to recognise that already publicans had legally a vested interest in their licenses, and that the magistrates had no power to refuse renewals except for misconduct. Here are his words on introducing the Bill: "We propose to con. fer on the Licensing Committee of the County Council the power to refuse renewal when they wish to reduce the number of licensed houses. We think it an undoubted defect in the existing condition of the law that the licensing authority has no power to reduce the number of licenses, however much they may consider that the licenses are out of proportion to the needs of the population. . . . Although these licenses are technically renewable year by year, it has again and again been held by the courts of law that renewals of these licenses cannot be refused unless for fault shown. We therefore propose that compensation shall be paid to those whose licenses are not renewed." This view of the law was endorsed by the Attorney-General, who said that a license holder had a "vested interest" in his license, and that "it was not competent for the magistrates to refuse the renewal of licenses which had been previously granted except on some special cause personal to the holder of the license." This interpretation of the law is entirely swept to the winds by the decision of the Queen's Bench division in the Westmoreland case. They have ruled that the magistrates have an "absolute discretion" to refuse or renew licenses. It is evident, therefore, that the alleged lack of power to cancel licenses is a fiction, although upon it the Government based the publican's claim to compensation now that it is proposed to grant the County Councils such power. No vested interest now exists; for licenses are only granted for twelv3 months, and the licensing Justices have power to refuse renewal. Hence it is, his reading of the law being shown to be wrong, that Mr Ritchie shifts his ground from law to equity. _ _  The decision in the Westmoreland case corresponds with a previous decision in the now almost forgotten Darwen case. In 1882 the Darwen licensing Justices resolved to reduce the number of beerhouses in that borough, and notices were served by the police upon the whole of the off-beer license holders, intimating that the renewal of their licenses would be opposed. Accordingly, the renewal of 34 out of 72 was refused. The beerlionse-keepers appealed to the Quarter Sessions at Preston, when the chairman, Mr Higgin, held that the Act of 1882 gave the mit:gistrates power to refuse the renewal of off. licenses. The decision of the magistrates was thus upheld. Appeal was then taken to the Queen's Bench, and Justices Field and Stephen, without hesitation, confirmed the ruling of Mr Higgiu, Q.C., intimating that the magistrates had the discretion of refusing renewals. Although this case only involved a question as to renewal of off. licenses, it was held at the time that it covered the Justices' discretion as to licenses for consumption on the premises as well. That was the opinion of competent authorities who commented upon it. The Marquis of Hartington, addressing his constituents on Janvs.ry 20, 1883. ilms amain