LICENSING COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XX, Issue 145, 20 June 1889, Page 8

LICENSING COURT.

(Continued fkom Page 5),

CLARICARDE HOTEL.

Messrs Cotter, Baume, and Pignan appeared in support of an application for the renewal of the license of this hotel to Mrs Ann Lynch.

Mr Cotter said that he would not now occupy the time of the Court by going over the points of Law. He would simply notify that he adopted the arguments already adduced. He would, however, to cave time ask the Bench whether it was their determination to have evidence from each particular district or whether the evidence of persons outside the district. He asked that, as at a previous meeting he had adduced evidence which was not required by the Bench. If it was that the Bench had decided that the house was not required in the neighbourhood he might save time. He would, however, mention thafa this hotel had been licensed consecutively for the last forty years. The hotel was builfc of brick in the year 1858. He would ask if the Bench, having assisted vvh?.t might be termed new iniquities, proposed to wipe oub the old identities. That hotel, unlike some others, had for 40 years provided accommodation for both man aud beast. Another point was that the police had no objection to the character of Mrs Lynch as licensee. He hoped therefore that the Bench would see their way to renew the license. During the morning there had been complaints that witnesses' evidence could not be heard, but ho was glad to see that they heard him better. It had been suggested that the Bench were more deaf to hear evidence for the applicant, than objections given privately. He was glad to see that such was nob the case then, and would hope it was an augury for the future. It should also be remembered that while they had no appeal from the decision of the Bench as regards matter of fact, still the Bench would be held accountable for their action by the public whom they represented, and they might depend; upon it {hat if this house was closed, then they would be held accountable at the bar of public opinion.

Mr Cotber then argued at some length with regard to the necessity of the house in the district. He mentioned that they were practically fighting a man in armour, as they could not get at him. He considered that it was a great argument in favour of the hotel that it was one of the oldest houses in the city. If the Bench considered that the hotel required enlarging the proprieeor would readily do ao. If the house was required for the population in Auckland forty years ago, surely ifc was more necessary now. An old well conducted house should receive a renewal of its license, and should not be wiped out because other Benches had in previous years increased the number of hotels in the North Werd to an abnormal extent. What was- fair between man and man was also fair between the Bench as representatives of the community and that man. Undisputed possession of land tor 40 years would give a good title, surely that ought also to apply to the license of an hotel, they had had no objection presented to them and therefore had to fight in the dark. He had, however, done his best and would hand in petitions praying that the hotel mi«ht be kept open for the benefit of the petitioners. (Loft) sitting.)