GRANTED!

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 133, 7 June 1926, Page 14

GRANTED!

LICENSE FOR AMBASSADORS.

VICTORY FOR APPLICANTS. CHAIRMAN OPPOSED TC DECISION. SIR JOHN FINDLAY REPLIES TO CRITICISM. After an hour's deliberation tho Auckland Licensing Bench on Saturday granted a license to the premises in Quay Street, known as the Ambassadors Hotel. The decision brought to a close a three days' action, which has been followed with intense interest by the public.

Sir John Findlay and Mr. R. A. Singer appeared for the owner of the property, Mr. J. C. Gleeson, and the prospective licensee, Mr. T. B. O'Connor. Mr. A. H. Johnstone and Mr. Tuck represented the memorialists opposed to the application, and Superintendent McIlveney. the police. The members of the committee present were Messrs. E. C. Cutten, S.M. (chairman), T. Grace, E. Leydon, G. T. Lethaby, and G. J. Trevithick. Mr. A. Thompson, the other member of the committee, was in Wellington. The Decision. "I feel bound," said Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M.. in delivering the judgment, " to dissociate myself from the decision of the majority of the committee in this matter. When application for the removal of the license to this hotel in Quay Street was before the Licensing Bench six months ago, it was refused on the ground that a license was not required in the neighbourhood. With that decision I was in entire agreement. To-day, the application for a license for these premises is again before the committee. The only new feature with regard to the application is that a very large expenditure has actually been made upon the house to make it so far as its size will permit, elaborately suitable for an hotel. Tn my opinion this should not be accepted as an important ground in deciding whether or not a license should be granted for these premises. The important ground is whether there is a necessity for a license in the neighbourhood. A majority of the elected members of the committee, however, is of opinion that the Thames license should not be allowed to lapse, and of the two houses the committee now has an opportunity of considering Kenilworth and the Ambassadors, the majority has decided to grant the application for a license to the latter premises. I am opposed to this decision and regret it, but the application is granted." Counsels' Addresses. On resuming after luncheon, the chairman referred to Mr. Johnstone's request for an adjournment, and said that the committee had decided that the evidence of Mr. Gleeson, whom counsel wished to call, could not have any real bearing on the issue. The application was therefore refused.

Sir John Findlay produced another doctor's certificate, in which it was stated that Mr. Gleeson would not be able to be about for a few days.

Mr. Johnstone said that the matter that had puzzled him was the extraordinary manner in which Mr. Gleeson had continued his operations, and upon that matter—and some others—counsel thought some light could be thrown if Mr. Gleeson was put into the box. "I can go further if needs be," said Mr. Johnstone, "but I don't wish to for a special reason. I've heard several rumours "

Sir John Findlay interrupted and said that all Mr. Gleeson could say would be about the value of the place. The committee had seen it for themselves, and he was prepared to withdraw all evidence as to and leave it to the eyes of the committee.

Mr. Johnstone went on to refer to rumours, when Sir John, pointing out that rumoufs were not evidence, added: "Why should I have a mystery thrown upon this thing because my friend's ears have heard rumours?" The chairman upheld the objection. "A Serious Temptation." Mr. Tuck opened his case, and referred to the disorganisation that could be caused on ships or the waterfront by the absence of seamen and waterside workers. It was, he said, a question whether the public interest or the interests of investors should prevail He said that the presence of an hotel in such close proximity, to the wharves would be a serious temptation to the men.. Counsel called - Captaip William Ross; who said that the granting of the license would be a blow to the port of Auckland, and James Bell Donald. *ho felt that if the license was granted the hotel would be a menace to the city and would affect a vital industry. To Sir John Findlay. however, he admitted that the conduct of an hotel depended on the licensee, and that, if the license was granted, the hotel, under Mr. Gleeson's control would be worthy of the name. This closed the case for the opposition. Sir John's Reply. In his address-in-reply, Sir John Findlay said that he greatly appreciated the address made by Mr. fuck. That made by Mr. Johnstone on Friday, while undoubtedly an able one, was one of the bitterest and most unfair ever made before a tribunal set up to administer justice. Mr. Johnstone had begun by "hurling back the insult" he alleged Sir John had flung at the memorialists on Wednesday by saying that they were "blinded by prejudice." Sir John contended that the evidences Mr. Johnstone then proceeded to lead - upheld his. implications. It showed that the opposition to the granting .'of the license .was founded on a regard only to the profits of the employers.

Sir John proceeded to refer to the "unusual bitterness" of Mr. Johnstone's attack on the prospective licensee. Mr. O'Connor; a man weH on in years', who, some years ago, had committed some trifling offence agrainst the Licensing-Act. In saying that Mr. O'Connor did not. as was contended, have a spotless recbrd. Mr. Johnstone did not add that ..his offence had been a trivial one. He' left it with harsh words. That, submitted Sir John, was rather unfair, and rather spoke and evinced a feeling not Usual to his friend on the other side.

"And why was it necessary to suggest that Mr. Gleeson came here under a cloak of hypocrisy?" contipued counsel. "Are you (tbe tribunal) going to find that a man with the reputation given by Donald, was croing designedly to spend money on this five-storied building for the sake of developing' a drinking saloon? Mr. Johnstone expects you to agree that Gleeson spent all this 'money as a transparent "blind to the bar below. Is that conceivably true?"

. JDhe ,committee, said Sir John, had seen the rooms and, although there were only 21 of them,, the single rooms could accommodate two people and still comply with the health regulations. The limit of 21 people that had been suggested could therefore be doubled.

"Notwithstanding these cogent facts, Mr. Johnstone out-Heroded Herod," continued Sir John. "He said that 'the hotel would degenerate into one of those drinking taverns which degraded every considerable seaport in the world.' That is the ground for this opposition. • This degeneration is not to be accidental but a maligned and designed attempt by Mr. Gleeson. A more unfair charge against a decent man's purpose could not have been made."

Referring to the statements about waterside workers slipping over the road for a drink, Sir John asked whether t

considerations of a few weaklings — <»■--. to dominate the interests of all other classes.

The application on behalf of Kenilworth was called and refused. The house was licensed prior to 1892, in which year an application for renewal was not granted.