c. 94. in boroughs. The provisions of the 35 & 36 Vict. c. 94, as to the 35 & 36 Vict. confirmation of the grant of licences by borough justices, as regards the constitution of the confirming Confirmation authority, are somewhat different to that for counties, Sect. 38. but in other respects they are the same, and are contained in sect. 38, set out in Chap. II., ante, pp. 84-87. By the last paragraph of sect. 50, set out in Chap. II., ante, p. 92, authorizing the removal of licences from one part of a district to another, &c., it is provided that " no such order shall be valid unless confirmed by Sect. 50. the confirming authority of the licensing district." Confirming moval of order of re licence from one house.&c. to another. FORM. [The Form of Confirmation of Licences, as prescribed by the Secretary of State, under sect. 48, subs. 1, ante, p. 64, is given in "Appendix I."] 35 & 36 Vict. c. 94. Definition of "renewal" of a licence. No notice of application for renewal necessary. c. 27, s. 7. CHAPTER IV. RENEWAL OF LICENCES AND CERTIFICATES BY LICENSING JUSTICES. "THE renewal of a licence" means a licence granted at a general annual licensing meeting by way of renewal. Sect. 74, ante, p. 25. It does not need confirmation by the county or borough committee. By 32 & 33 Vict. c. 27, s. 7 (which, as we have seen, is now incorporated into the other acts, pp. 58, 32 & 33 Vict. 59), it is provided (inter alia), that "where application is made to the justices for the grant of a certificate under this act by way of renewal only, notice in pursuance of this section shall not be requisite." By 35 & 36 Vict. c. 94, s. 36 (set out in Chap. VII., as to registers of licences) the person applying for a renewal is to state the name of the owner of the premises. Name of owner. 35 & 36 Vict. c. 94, s. 36. Provisions as to renewal of -Personal attendance of 37 & 38 Vict. c. 49, s. 26. 35 & 36 Vict. c. 94, s. 42, enacts: -Where a licensed person applies for the renewal of his licence the following provisions shall have effect: (1.) He need not attend in person at the general annual licensing meeting unless he is required by the licensing justices so to attend (a): But now the Act of 1874, s. 26, after reciting the above provision (1) of section forty-two, enacts that "such requisition shall not be made, save for some special cause personal to the licensed person to whom such requisition is sent." And that "it shall not be necessary to serve copies of notices of any adjournment 37 & 38 Vict. c. 49. of a general annual licensing meeting on holders of Sect. 26. oppose the 35 & 36 Vict. c. 94, s. 42. (2.) The justices shall not entertain any objection-Notice to to the renewal of such licence, or take any renewal to be given: evidence with respect to the renewal thereof, unless written notice of an intention to oppose the renewal of such licence has been served on such holder not less than seven days before the commencement of the general annual licensing meeting (b):-provided that the licensing justices may, notwithstanding that no notice has been given, on an objection being made, adjourn the granting of any licence to a future day, and require the at- renewal. tendance of the holder of the licence on such day, when the case will be heard and the objection considered, as if the notice hereinbefore prescribed had been given (c). Justices and require may adjourn licensed person to attend, although no notice given to oppose the Ib. c. 49, s. 26. A notice of an intention to oppose the renewal of a 37 & 38 Vict. licence served under section forty-two of the principal act shall not be valid unless it states in general terms the grounds on which the renewal of such licence is to .be opposed. (3.) The justices shall not receive any evidence with Evidence to respect to the renewal of such licence which is not given on oath. Subject as aforesaid, licences shall be renewed and the powers and discretions of justices relative to such zenewal shall be exercised as heretofore (d). See sect. 46, ante, p. 47, et seqq., as to renewal of licences for be upon oath. 35 & 36 Vict. c. 94, s. 42. 35 & 36 Vict. houses, &c., licensed for the sale of wine or beer for consumption on, conditionally upon premises being made of sufficient value. c. 94. As to renewal of licences for (a) This provision, so far as renewals are concerned, impliedly repeals the provisions of the 9 Geo. 4, c. 61, s. 12, as to the personal attendance of the applicant. See Form of Notice from the Justices requiring his attendance, No. 13, p. 105, which may be sent by the post as provided by sect. 70, ante, p. 37. (b) It would seem that any person may oppose the renewal; see ante, p. 62, and note (c) infra. As no specific grounds on which the opposition can be made are stated here, it is apprehended that the matter will rest with the licensing justices alone in regard to alehouses; see note (d), infra. The provision for notice to the holder of the intention to oppose the renewal of his licence is also new; see Form of Notice, No. 14, p. 106. If the justices should refuse to renew the licence there is an appeal to the quarter sessions against such refusal as heretofore under 9 Geo. 4, c. 61, s. 27; see Chap. VI., post, p. 122; and see 35 & 36 Vict. c. 94, s. 53, post, p. 105. (c) G. applied for renewal of licence to sell beer, by retail, to be drunk on the premises, and attended general licensing meeting, August, 1873, having received no notice of opposition and not required to attend by justices. He paid fees to the justices' clerk, who said, "all right." G. left, supposing licence would be renewed. The justices had considered the applications, and determined to adjourn eleven, G.'s among them, to satisfy themselves of their value; and gave notice thereof in open court. Knowledge of this was not brought home to G. On September 24, the justices refused renewal, because the premises were not of requisite value. G. applied for mandamus to justices to grant licence :-Held, not entitled to mandamus, but that justices were bound to have given him notice and required his attendance at adjourned meeting, and that mandamus must be granted to hold adjourned meeting, and after notice to G., to hear and determine his application. Semble, that any one of the licensing justices could himself make objection to renewal (Reg. v. Farquhar, L. R., 9 Q. B. 258). (d) This refers to 32 & 33 Vict. c. 27, s. 8, as amended, and set out, ante, pp. 75, 76, as the grounds on which a beer and wine licence authorizing consumption off the premises can be refused still apply to renewals and transfers of such licences; for if to be consumed on the premises, then justices may refuse the certificate without stating the grounds upon which they do so. As to enlargements or alterations of premises, if they are material the justices can treat them as a new house or not (Reg. v. Smith, 15 Law T., N. S. 178). As to renewal of licences for beer and wine existing on 1st May, 1869, the 32 & 33 Vict. c. 27, s. 19 (exwine existing tended, as shown infra, by 33 & 34 Vict. c. 29, s. 7), beer and c. 94. on 1st May, c. 27, s. 19; 33 & 34 Vict. c. 29, s. 7. provides,-" Where, on the first of May, 1869, a licence 35 & 36 Vict. under any of the said recited acts (a) is in force [and has been renewed from time to time, whether such 1869. licence continues to be held by the same person or has 32 & 33 Vict. been or may be transferred to any other person or persons, 33 & 34 Vict. c. 29, s. 7] with respect to any house or shop for the sale by retail therein of beer, cider, or wine to be consumed on the premises, it shall not be lawful for the justices to refuse an application for a certificate for the sale of beer, cider, or wine to be consumed on the premises in respect of such house or shop, except upon one or more of the grounds upon which an application for a certificate under this act in respect of a licence for the sale of beer, cider, or wine, not to be consumed on the premises, may be refused, in accordance with this act" (b). (a) 1 Will. 4, c. 64; 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 85; 3 & 4 Vict. c. 61; 24 & 25 Vict. c. 21; 26 & 27 Vict. c. 33; and 23 Vict. c. 27. (b) E. g., under 32 & 33 Vict. c. 27, s. 8, ante, pp. 75, 76. Where a licence or certificate of a house licensed on the 1st May, 1869, has afterwards dropped or been refused, the justices, on the true construction of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 27, s. 19, have the same discretion to refuse a fresh certificate for a licence to sell beer to be consumed on the premises as if the application were in respect of a house, which had not been licensed on May 1st, 1869, and the repeal of the declaratory section (sect. 3) of 34 & 35 Vict. c. 88, is immaterial. The applicant who on May 1, 1869, held a licence to sell beer on his premises under 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 64, s. 2, did not apply for a certificate under sect. 19 of Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869, at licensing meetings of 1870 and 1871; and in 1872, the justices, in exercise of their discretion under sect. 3 of Intoxicating Liquors (Licences Suspension) Act, 1871, refused his application for such certificate. Licensing Act, 1872, repeals Act of 1871, but in 1873, the justices again refused the applicant a certificate, and upon grounds other than those limited by Act of 1869 (Reg. v. Curzon, 42 L. J. (N. S.) M. C. 155; L. R., 8 Q. B. 400; 29 L. T., N. Š. 32). The 35 & 36 Vict. c. 94, s. 48, subs. 2 (the remainder of the section being in Chap. II., ante, p. enacts,-"A renewal of a licence may be made by an 64), Form of relicence. newal of a 35 & 36 Vict. c. 94, s. 48, subs. 2. |