LICENSING-OF HOTELS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 141, 15 June 1892, Page 8

LICENSING-OF HOTELS.

PACIFIC HOTEL LICENSE REFUSED.

LICENSE REFUSED TO -. PROVINCIAL. • ,

AUCKLAND NORTH,

An adjourned sitting of the Auckland North Licensing Bench was held at the R.M. Court at noon to-day. The Commissioners presenb were :—Messrs J. J. Holland (Chairman!, J. J. Craig, A. Porter, J. !T. Julian, C. Bailey and T. T. Masefield. iAn application of renewal of the City Hotel license to Patrick Gleeson badbeen adjourned ,to enable the Committee to make further inquiry. The Chairman of Committee now Bbated that the Bench had gone carefully into certain complaints, and had decided to grant the license. AUCKLAND EAST.... " The adjourned meeting of the Auckland East Licensing Commibtee was alsoheld today, the Committee presiding being : Messrs'J. J. Holland (Chairman), T. T. Masefield, J. Winks, J. T. Julian, and.G. Bailey. Application was made for renewal of the license of the Pacific Hotel, in respect of which the Committee had already expressed their intention to refuse the application on the ground that the house is nob required in.the neighbourhood. Mr Cotter appeared for the applicant, and Mr E.Hesketh for the owner..

The Chairman of Committee stated that the Committee had decided to act under section 63 of the Licensing Act, bub they were prepared to hear all that was to be said with reference to the matter.

JNJr Hesketh said the position which Mr Cotter and himself proposed to take up wag to endeavour to show that this hotel is required in tho neighbourhood. He put in petitions signed by 579 persons in favour of granting a renewal of the license. Mr Hesketh pointed out that 200 or 300 of those who had signed the petition resided in the immediate neighbourhood of the hotel, and that these persons, if any, would know whether the house interfered with the quiet and orderly behaviour of the neighbourhood. One of the petitions was signed by 27 publicans, and these persons in the same line of business, who would probably be benefited by the closing of the hotel, were in favour of the license being granted. He presumed that the Committee bad nob prejudged the matter, but that, if tbe balance of testimony was in favour of the renewal of the license, the Bench would grant the application. The Committee were dealing with a hotel that had beeu in .existence for some . forty years and after a search of the records, he was able 'to state that no serious objection had ever been taken to the manner in which this house waa conducted. No change had taken place co far as he knew. The house must for several years have been in advance of whab was required for hotel accommodation. If the Committee now thought that alterations or improvements were required, the owner would be prepared to carry them out. He submitted that no license should be dealt with adversely without full and generous warning to those interested and the only information thoy had received of an adverse decision was at the last annual meeting. AU that was then stated was that, with reference to tbis license, the whole subject would be gone into at the nexb annual meeting. He then took ib that ab the annual meeting it was probable the Committee, would ask for some additions or improvements, to the house, bub^ he did nob understand thab there was any intimation .of ah intention to refuse renewal of the license. If they bad been, told twelve months ago thab. the Jicensei would .be Refused: because ib ~was alleged the house was not required,"- he believed overwhelming testimony could have been adduced' to the contrary. He did not think the owner was required to rebuild or improve the hotel until sOme intimation to that effect'was given by the Committee. Mr Hesketh further drew attention to the fact thab during the year? that temperance Committees were in power no objection was taken to tbis house. .The Chairman said there was a very great deal of opposition to renewal of the license, although it had not taken the form of petition. He thought the owner had received sufficient notice ythab the hotol was considered to be. unsuitable. Plans for a new building, he understood, had been ready for some years bub nothing had been done.

Mr Hesketh stated thab the owner was waiting for some intimation from tho Committee. He went on to point out thab the Pacific was the only hotel on that side of Queen-street from the Thames Hotel upward. They could not expect to find the same class of people there as ab the Star Hotel, but there was no suggestion thab the house was nob well conducted.

Mr Cotter, on behalf of the applicant, traversed to some extent the ground gone over by Mr Hesketh. He said the Bench were now considering; the takingaway of a license when there was no organieed opposition to that license being granted. He asked the Committee as honourable men how he could fight a shadow? Here they had an objection made to the renewal of the license — not because it was the real reason, but because Committees regarded itas a sufficient cloak to cover it. In this case they had no objection that the house was not required in the neighbourhood that could be put to the test of cross-examination ; they had nothing bub a simple intimation from the Bench that they objected to-;..: the >.vlicense being granted on thia ground. It bad been stated that Colonel Dawson had not carried out an undertaking to repair this hotel, but that was not the objection now taken, and he woulcL:say that no such recommendation was explicitly made by the Committee at the last annual meeting. If this was the sole objection he suggested that the Committee should issue the license subject to certain conditions being:, fulfilled in a satisfactory manner. Surely that was nothing unreasonable to ask for a house that held a license continuously for forty years. The objection that an hotel was "not required in the neighbourhood, he urged, should, moreover, not be taken to the oldest house in the neighbourhood, but to the youngest. Mr Cotter said he had als.o a petition in favour of the renewal of this license, signed by every brewer in Auckland. They submitted respectfully that there was no good reason why the Pacific Hotel should be closed, that it supplied a class of customers that did not frequent other hotels; that the hotel had been well conducted, and that it did not interfere with the quiet of the neighbourhood. From every class, therefore, the Bench had a request that this license should be granted, and the objection taken had been answered so far as it was capable of being answered. Mr Cotter submitted plans that had. been prepared for alteration and improvements to the hotel to cost upwards of £1,000. If the Committee granted the license on condition that the work was done, or on other reasonable conditions, Colonel Dawson would undertnke to call for tenders and proceed with the work immediately. Thfe Chairman of Committee stated that if they had wanted Colonel Dawson to rebuild the hotel they would have told him so straight. It was never intended to ask him to rebuild. In order that the licensee and lessee should not be harshly dealt with, the Committee let it stand over till this year to decide whether they would close the house, or require it to be re-built. They had decided against tho license being re-

nevved.. :Ib / was nob-, correctly stated thab the^house was" to be'closed because certain alterations bad not been done. In regard to the petitions presenbed, he had to say that the Bench would look over, them arid give their decision later on. . Inspector Broham, being asked to state the views of the police, eaid the police had no fcomplainb to make .whatever with reference to this house. His own opinion was thab he would be in favour of granting the license. He waa opposed bo restrict the number of public bouses co as to place monopoly, in the'hands of a few. .

At 2.30 p.m. the Chairman of the Committee stated ;that the Bench had gone carefully into the matter, and: had considered tbe petitions presented:, Theyybad come to the conclusion thab bhey jdid) nobj Bee reason to alter decision, and declined to grant the license. THE PROVINCIAL HOTEL. Mr Campbell next proceeded to address the Court in support of an application for renewal of license to ~ the Provincial Hotel, in respect of which the Bench had expressed their intention to close the hotel, on the ground that it was not required in the neighbourhood. Mr Campbell eaid thab in view of the adverse decision jusb given, notwibbstanding tbo very sbrong case made oub by his friends, he might be considered foolhardy to proceed with his case^ but be was nevertheless determined to put the matter in regard to theProviucial Hotel fully before the Bench. His client was a poor man and this was one of the few free houses in the city. The Provincial Hotel was-partly owned by Mr John Lynch, the presenb licensee was Mr William Lynch, and ho brewer had control over; the house. Mr Campbell urged bhat bhe house was required in the neighbourhood. Ib Buited the wants of a certain class of people, and he felb sure that the majorityof bhe residents, in that locality would prefer to go into the Provincial rather than into the Grand Hotel for liquor refreshment. In the situation occupied by the Provincial Hotel, were the license taken away, the property would depreciate so seriously as to be almosb worthless. This was a house of very long standing. No objection was made to it as being a bouse not well conducted, and ib was nob claimed thab the House was unsuitable. Everybody did nob wanb. to go to a large house and the Provincial Hotel, wibh the accommodation it had, and with-tbe customers it had, was, he maintained, required in the vicinity. This, moreover, was an application for renewal of , a license, not for a new license, and bbc Licensing Act looked much more benderly upon a person already lecensed than upon persons coming. for new licenses. In the present case there was no evidenceuponoath, and no person made objection to this house either upon oath or without oath.. If the Committee were merely taking away certain licenses and had fallen upon these two hotels, he would very strongly urge that such was not the intention of the Act. Mr Campbell presented a petition with over eighty signatures in favour of the renewal of license being granted to bhe Provincial Hotel. The petition set oub thab the hotel was well conducted, and that the licensing of the house was not likely to interfere with the order and quieb of the neighbourhood. It was* possible that the situation of the hotel' might be improved, and, on behalf of his client, he was prepared to agree ,bo the removal of the hotel to a more approved locality. He submitted that if there were too many licenses in this district, a license should not be taken away from a man who had.but one license, but from those who had a number of licenses, For the Committee to take away the license of a^house situated as this hotel was would, he urged, be one of the harshest decisions ever given by a Licensing Committee. ,!■■"•" The Chairman \6f Committee stated' that, they' h v_d;-'r'eceivM-''-'a 7'^Btiti6n;;^i^M by, nearly-allthe -residents of- Shlattltftndstreet, ver£ fctrongljr worded ijqrj opposition to *_be ! 'granting Of this license. They would take bpth petitions into consideration, also the- 'arguments used by Mr Campbell, but they would also - like to hear-what Inspecto^ Broham had to ■ say. •''- '■-'-,' I Inspector Broham said that during the time of the last tenant this hotel had been conducted very satisfactorily. He was a strong advocate for the issue. of tbe license.' As he had stated in the case of the Pacific Hotel, he saw no reason why there should be a great monopoly in the public house property in thia ciby. If he thought it necessary to reduce the number of licenses he would recommend that the number be very largely reduced all round. When in Auckland twenty years ago he saw twice the number of hotels now in existence, with a very much smaller population, and then every licensee owned his own house. Now he found half the number of hotels, and nearly all. in the hands of brewers. After brief consideration, the Chairman of Committee xtated that they had for some time past been .of opiniontbatmost of the smaller hobelsshould be closed, as bhey were nothing else than drinking houses. They had carefully con - sidered'tho petition submitted, and bad resolved to decline to grant renewal of the license.