OLD THAMES LICENSE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 129, 2 June 1926, Page 9

OLD THAMES LICENSE.

SOUGHT BY TWO HOUSES. AMBASSADORS AND KENIXWORTH. MATTER BEFORE LICENSING COURT. Much interest attaches to the matter of the license of the old Thames Hotel, two applications for which were made to the annual meeting of the Auckland Licensing Committee to-day—one on behalf of The Ambassadors, in Quay Street, and the other for Kenilwortli. which is at present conducted as a boardinghouse in Shortiand Street. In respect of The Ambassadors Hotel, the application is made by Timothy Meebon O'Connor, prospective licensee, on behalf of the owner, Mr. J. C. Gleeson. The application in respect to Kenilworth is being made by William John Bray, owner and prospective licensee. The Ambassadors, it is pointed out, formerly a warehouse, has been transformed by Mr. Gleeson into a modern hotel, containing 25 bedrooms and most luxurious appointments and fittings. Kenilworth is said to have fifteen bedrooms and to be suitable for an hotel. Sir John Findlay with Mr. R. A. Singer, appeared in the interests of The Ambassadors, Mr. A. F. Hogg for Kenilworth, Mr. A. Johnstone and Mr. Tuck for those objecting to the granting of the license to the Quay Street Hotel. Inspector Mcllveney represented the police. The committee consisted of Messrs. E. C. Cutten, S.M. (chairman), J. Trevithick, Lethaby, Edward Leydon and James Grace. Mr. A. Thompson, the other member, was absent owing to an engagement in Wellington. Objection was formally made by Sir John Findlay that certain of the memorials covered grounds that were not open to them. The Chairman:. These memorials do not seem to have any grounds. They simply request that the license be not granted. Sir John Findlay reminded the committee that the old Thames license had ceased to exist, and that they were now applying for the issue of a new license. In respect to the application on behalf of The Ambassadors, no objection could be taken on the ground that the building was close to a waterfront or a wharf. The institutions to which an hotel could not be adjacent were set down in the Act as a church, hospital or school. Therefore, the memorials covered ground which was quite outside I them. Character was the best guarantee iof conduct, and if the committee was satisfied that the character of an applicant was good thete could be no objection to him as a licensee. This applicant had a record of 40 years as a licensee without a conviction recorded against him or a complaint made against his management. Mr. Gleeson, the owner of the Quay Street premises, was born in Auckland and was well known to all. and he had received the benefits of superior and uplifting education. He had been intended for the. legal profession, but he had decided upon seeking an honester calling. (Laughter.) For years he had devoted himself to looking after the administration of the several hotels which had been owned by his late father, whose practice used to be to purchase old buildings, pull them down, and erect modern structures in their places. The late Mr. Gleeson had "always gone on the principle that he would not own an hotel which was not a credit to the town. Sir John then recapitulated the purchase by Mr. Gleeson of the license of the Thames Hotel for £3000, a condition made by the Dilworth Trustees being that a new hotel should not be built in Queen Street. Mr. Gleeson then bought the warehouse in Quay Street, a concrete structure, for £23.000, and he had since spent upon it £14,000 in alterations and £7000 in furnishings and furniture, bringing the total cost of the property to him up to £44,000. In fact, with further improvements, including electric lift, bar and other expensive fittings, the total was brought up to about £50,000. The objection to a hotel being in proximity to the waterfront was a new one in the history of licensing in Auckland. The Thames Hotel itself, when its license was granted, was on the waterfortn, and other hotels in the vicinity in those days were also waterfront 'hotels. Why, Shortiand Street was once a waterfornt and for the licenses for its hotels when it was a waterfront. The same thing applied to Customs Street. With the progress of reclamation in Auckland and The Ambassador Hotel, might in the course of time be left as far back from the water as was Customs Street was. With the extensive reclamation works recently completed, every part of Quay Street could not now be called ail waterfront. There were waterside workers in the days when the licenses of the hotels referred to were granted, though not so many; but the principle was the same, and the precedent set down by the old licensing boards of the day should not be disturbed, for British just was wisely and largely maintained on the preservation of precedent. (Proceeding.)