requisites cate. (c) Such certificate (i) shall be in the form N., in the Form and Time for presenting cer filing. (15) Any petition against the granting of a license shall Time for be lodged with the inspector at least four days before the said first meeting of the board to consider the application ; (7) and the inspector shall present the same to the board at the first meeting thereof. list of etc. (16) The inspector shall keep a list posted (m) in his Posting office for three days previous to the meeting of the board, petitions, of all certificates and petitions lodged with him as aforesaid, and every such petition or certificate shall be open for public inspection without fee. (n.) and "near" is also the equivalent of "nearest :" Stroud's Dict., 496. See also Bathard v. London Sewers Comrs., 54 J. P., 135. (i) "Such certificate," i. c., the certificate required in case of an application for license by a person who is not licensed at the time of making such application, or in case of a transfer of license to premises outside of the polling subdivision then licensed. (j) A substantial compliance is all that is required: re Allison, 10 Ex. at page 568, per Parke, B.; R. v. Hyde, 7 E. & B., 859; Eggington v. Lichfield (mayor, etc.), 5 E. & B., 101; R. v. Justices Cheshire, 3 D. & L., 337. See also Henry v. Armitage, 12 Q. B. D., 257. See also notes to sec. 103. (k) This provision only applies to applications for licenses for the year 1890-91. (1) The certificate is to be "lodged" or filed in the office of the Inspector "at least four days before the meeting of the board." "At least four days' means four clear days at least. See notes (d) and (h), sub-sec. 5 supra. (m) "Posted" is defined literally to mean "fixed upon a post, as a notice or advertisement."-Worcester, 1108. Here it means placed in such a position that it may be read without asking permission. (n) "Three days mean clear days. The Act makes no provision as to what the list should contain, but it is submitted that in the case of a petition for a license it should shew the name and residence of the applicant, the premises in Hearing and deter mining objections. Proceedings at (17) Every application (0) for a license, and all objections to every such application, shall be heard and determined at a meeting of the board. (p.) (18) Every such hearing shall be open to the public, and hearings. the board may summon and examine on oath such witnesses as they may think necessary, and as nearly as may be in the manner directed by any Act now or hereafter to be in force relating to the duties of Justices in relation to summary convictions and orders; and any member of the board may administer the oath; but nevertheless nothing herein contained shall prevent the board from retiring or sitting with closed doors while considering or preparing their decision respect of which the license is asked, and the description of license applied for. In the case of certificates, sufficient information should be given to shew the particular applications to which they respectively refer. The original petitions and certificates shall be accessible to the public for the purposes of examination and inspection without any charge. (0) In a strict legal sense the word "application" has been held to include the hearing of a suit as well as an interlocutory proceeding (see International Financial Soc'y v. Moscow Gas Co., 7 Ch. D. 241), but in this Act it seems to have been used interchangeably with the word "petition" and as synonymous to it. (p)" Objections to every such application." See sub-section 8 and notes thereto. To hear a cause or matter means to hear and determine it. It has been said that " hearing includes not only its necessary antecedents, but also its necessary consequences: per Selborne, L. C., re Green, 7 Q. B. D., 273; nom Green v. Penzance, 6 App. Cas. 657. See sub-sec. 5 of this section. The meeting must be held on a day to be fixed by the Commissioners, not less than one week prior to the 1st of May in each year, and the certificates and petitions "lodged" with the Inspector at least four days before the day fixed for the meeting, and must be presented by the Inspector at that meeting. When power is given to "hear and determine an offence, it was held that a condition is implied that the accused be first cited by a summons and have an opportunity of defence: Dwar. 671, 672. So in this case it is submitted that the applicant has the right to be heard as well as the objectors, although no express provision is made therefor. When two or more are to hear and determine a matter, they must sit together and not separately (Burn's Justice Intro. xxiv., cited Dwar., 670) and it must be done under this sub-section at a meeting of the board. A "meeting" implies a concurrence or coming together of at least two persons per Coleridge, C. J., Sharp v. Dawes, 2 Q. B. D., 26. One swallow does not make a summer, nor does the presence of one Commissioner constitute a meeting. As was said by Coleridge, C. J., in Sharp v. Dawes, sup., "No doubt in a particular Statute the word might be used in a special sense, so that the attendance of one might satisfy it ;" but under the provisions of this Act it is declared that the presence of two of the Commissioners is requisite to form a quorum. See sect. 3 and notes thereto. or judgment in respect of any application or applications. (9) ing meet (19) Any meeting of the board for the consideration of Adjournapplications may, at the discretion of the board, be adjourned ings. from time to time to the same or any other place or building within the district. (r.) inspector. (20) Where the inspector has not taken or set apart Office of premises especially for the purposes of an office, the room or rooms in which he usually conducts his official business, (q) The meeting shall be held in a place to which the public have or are permitted to have access: see Hirst v. Molesbury, L. R. 6, Q. B. 130. It has been held that the expression " open Court" does not include the private room of a County Judge, though often used by him for hearing causes: Kenyon v. Eastwood, 57 L. J. Q. B., 455. By the "public" is meant the people at large: Worcester, 1151. No one who wishes to attend may be excluded. The proceedings are to be conducted in the same manner as in the case of Justices of the Peace on the trial of cases under "The Summary Convictions Act," which provides that the room or place in which the Justice sits shall be deemed an open and public Court to which the public generally may have access, so far as the same can conveniently contain them R. S. C. 1886, c. 178, s. 33. "Examine on oath." See note to sub-sec. 14. A power to take examinations or other proof in itself implies that it is to be done on oath: Hoyles v. Blore, 14 M. & W., 387. "The Summary Convictions Act," R. S. C. 1886, c. 178, sects. 13-22, makes provision for enforcing the attendance of witnesses. Sects. 29-32 provide for the case of persons likely to give material evidence and who will not voluntarily appear, and sec. 33, et seq, prescribes the duties and powers of the Justices on the hearing and examination of witnesses. See sects. 93-100, post and notes thereto. The word "any "excludes limitation or qualification: per Fry L. J., Duck v. Bates, 12 Q. B. D., 79. But its generality in this case is restricted by the context, and any member of the Board "applies to the Board having jurisdiction in the particular case under adjudication: see Stroud's Dict., 39. After having heard the parties or their agents, the Commissioners may either retire or clear the Court and continue their deliberations with closed doors, but this can only be done while they are considering or preparing their decision or judgment. All evidence and argument should be heard in public. The Commissioners should not listen to anything from any person except at the hearing : re Cruickshank v. Corby, 30 C. P., 466. (r) The words "from time to time" are words which are constantly introduced where it is intended to protect a person who is empowered to act from the risk of having completely discharged his duty when he has once acted, and, therefore, not being able to act again in the same direction. The power of adjournment here conferred on the Board of License Commissioners seems to be unlimited. They may adjourn as often as they may think fit: see Lawrie v. Lees, 7 App. Cas. 19; re Sutton v. Coldfield Grammar School, 7 App. Cas. 91; see also Neilson v. Jarvis, 13 C. P., 176, in which it was held that where the words were not used an execution was not renewable. The " 206, 385b. "" same generally refers to the next preceding antecedent: Co. Litt., Within the district" refers to the license district. See sec. 2, ss. 6. Foregoing sub-sec whether at his residence or place of business, shall be deemed to be his office for the purposes of this Act. (s.) (21) The foregoing sub-sections of this section are detions declared to be obligatory (t) on the board and inspector, but only. non-compliance therewith shall not invalidate the action of the board or inspector. Nothing in this sub-section contained shall authorize the granting of a license contrary to the provisions of sub-section 14. 47 V., c. 34, S. 4. claratory Mode of proced ure in obtaining 12. (1) (u) If upon application (v) of any person re quiring a tavern or shop license, it appears that such applitavern or cant is the true owner of the business (w) of such tavern or shop licenses. (s) An office is the place where a person usually conducts his business (see Worcester), and his residence is the place where he eats, drinks and sleeps, or where his family or his servants eat, drink and sleep; per Bayley, J., R. v. North Curry, 4 B. & C. 959. It has a variety of meanings, according to the Statute in which it is used, per Erle, C. J., Naef v. Mutter, 31 L. J. C. P. 359; Shaw v. Morley, L. R. 3, Ex. 137; Bows v Fenwick, L. R. 9, C. P. 339; see also re Bowie, ex p. Breull, 16 Ch. D. 484. And a person's place of business may be his residence, but in this case it may be taken to mean the place where he usually sleeps; see Attenborough v. Thompson, 2 H. & N. 559; Blackwell v. England, 8 E. & B. 541; Greenham v. Child, 59 L. J. Q. B. 27; re Moulson, ex p. Knightly, 51 L. J. Ch. 823; Wallis v. Smith, W. N. (1882) 77. See Sinclair's Con. D. C. Act, 1888, 39, 126, 141; Stroud's Dict., 678. Where the Inspector has no regular office or place of business, the place where he usually conducts his official business, wherever it may be, shall be deemed his office for the purposes of this Act, that is for the purpose of posting up the list of applications and certificates as in sub-sec. 16. (t) The sub-sections of this section must be observed strictly by the Board of License Commissioners and Inspector, and on any refusal or neglect on the part of these officers to comply, the Courts would enforce compliance. Where a public duty devolves upon an official, and no specific remedy is provided in case of his refusal, the Court will grant mandamus to command the performance of the duty: Tapping on mandamus page 12; R. v. W. R. Justices, 1 New Sess. Cas., 247. But see Leeson v. License Com. of Dufferin, 19 O. R., 67, in which mandamus to compel the issue of a license was refused. "Shall not invalidate. "" This only applies to the legal acts of the Commissioners and Inspector. A license issued in contravention of the Statute, as in the case of the granting of a license to a Commissioner or Inspector, is void. See also the licenses prohibited by secs. 13, 14, 15, 16. (u) Under this section an applicant to be entitled to a license must be the true owner of the business, and have complied with the requirements of the law and of any Municipal By-laws in force in that behalf, and also with the regulations and requirements of the Commissioners, and be one of the persons designated or otherwise approved of by the License Commissioners. These are conditions precedent to the granting of the license, and must be complied with before the License Commissioners are authorized to grant the certificate. (v) "Application" and "petition seem to be used as synonymous or interchangeable terms: see sec. 11, sub-sec. 1 et seq. (w) The Canadian Act gives no definition of the term "owner." In the English Licensing Act, 35 and 36 Vic., c. 94, the expression used is "owner of 1 shop, and has complied with the requirements of the law, and of any municipal by-laws in force in that behalf, and also with the regulations and requirements of the license commissioners, (x) and is one of the persons designated or otherwise approved of by the license commissioners, (y) the said license commissioners may grant (z) such applicant licensed premises," and it is defined to mean "the person for the time being entitled to receive, either on his own account or as mortgagee or other incumbrancer in possession, the rack-rent of such premises." But this conveys a different meaning to the phrase "true owner "" as used in our Act. The 66 owner " is he who has dominion over a thing which he may use as he pleases, except as restrained by law or by contract; it has been held to include the person in possession and control of any article of personality, as the one who hires a carriage: see Dow v. Gould Mining Co., 31 Cal., 649 (1867); Camp v. Rogers, 44 Conn., 298 (1877). The term is used in this section in its widest sense, it will, therefore, include any one who is entitled for the time being to the possession of the premises and to the control and usufruct thereof; or as said by Bramwell, L. J., Eglinton v. Norman, 46 L. J. Q. B.. 559: "The owner' or proprietor' of a property is the person in whom it is for the time being beneficially vested and who has the occupation or control or usufruct of it; e. g., the lessee is, during the term, the owner of the property demised.' As to the application and meaning of the term "owner" generally, see Gilchrist v. Tobin, 7 C. P., 141; Hopkins v. Provincial Ins. Co., 18 C. P., 74; McDougall v. McMillan, 25 C. P., 75; Chatillon v. Can. M. Fire Ins. Co., 27 C. P., 450; Bank of Toronto v. Fanning, 17 Gr., 514; Chauntler v. Robinson, 1 Ex., 163; Lister v. Lobley, 7 A. & E., 124; Cook v. Humber, 11 C. B. N. S., 33; R. v. Vestry of St. Marylebone, 20 Q. B. D., 415; Woodard v. Billericay Highway Board, 11 Ch. D., 214; Jackson v. Kassel, 26 U. C. R., 341. " The word "true" has very little significance; it is little more than an expletive. The "owner" of anything is quite as much the owner as the "true owner can possibly be. A person may be the "true owner " of the business, however, although the license is taken out in the name of another: see note, (a) sec. 11., ss. 3. But the license can only be legally granted to the "true owner,' and if obtained by fraudulent means may be revoked: see sec. 91. In some cases, however, it may happen that a firm or company are the owners or occupiers, and a license is applied for in the name of a manager or servant of such company. In England this is frequently done, see Paterson's L. A., 158, but it is doubtful if a license could be issued under this Act to such manager or servant. (x) The applicant is bound not only to comply with the regulations-that is, the resolutions or by-laws-of the License Commissioners, (see notes to sec. 4), but must conform to the requirements of the law, to any Municipal By-laws in force in the Municipality, and to the "requirements" of the License Commissioners. (y) See sec. 11, sub-sec. 17 and notes thereto. (z) It is entirely optional with the Commissioners either to grant or refuse the certificate: See R. v. Kensington, 12 Q. B., 654; R. v. Salford, 18 Q. B., 687. In the latter case, it was held that the granting of a license was not, in itself, a judicial act over which the Court could exercise control. The Court refused to interfere by mandamus to compel the Commissioners to issue a license: Leeson v. License Com. of Dufferin, 19 O. R., 67. An action will not lie for refusing a license: Basset v. Godschall, 3 Wils., 121, 4 Mew's. Dig., 1286; and there is no appeal from their decision. See sec. 11, sub-sec. 13. But see R. v. Middlesex Justices, 3 B. & Ad., 938; R. v. Deane, 2 Q. B., 96; R. v. Cockburn, 4 E. & B., 265; R. v. Justices of Ely, 5 E. & B., 489; R. v. |