THE MATAMATA LICENSING CASE.

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume XLVIII, Issue 7450, 14 July 1920, Page 2

THE MATAMATA LICENSING CASE.

Mr Mays Addresses (he Committee

i Mi Mays, who appeared for th Inspector ot licensed prcmi * (Inspector bheehan of Hami! ton y • pointed cut thru he had d m l the attend n of the Court at th first sitting to the forma] 'object i tion lodged in due course of hx by Inspector Shcehan. Four grounds of objection were state! and included)the grounds usually stated. The objection had h;uh! b«* filed quickly, and as the i n ° spector sometimes could only a c * ,on superficial knowledge" the grounds of objection wcre^stated in the broadest possible manner to permit any.person who mio-ht - otherwise be shut out to come "in behind the Inspector. In the pa s t few years it had been the fortune or misiortunc o! the Inspector to " have to carry on his back the whole burden of representing all the objectors, because in "this province objectors did not appear to be well posted in t h e Act so that atTaneatua and other ph' Ces he, Mr Mays. h:,d represented, for the inspector, an the objectors.lf however, the commiUee would ex' amine categorically the Inspectors objections to the present application they would see ~ that the whole o<i the objections raised had been dealt with. The • first ' objection—the notice was dated June 2nd.—was that the premises in question were out of repair or had not reasonable accommodation. That referred of course to the tour-roomed cottage in re spect to which the application was made. The committee had heard the evidence as to the ' building that now existed, and he - would merely call the Inspector who saw the premises on the previous Monday, to say what he thought of them. The next objection was that a license was not required in the neighbourhood and that the quiet of the place would be disturbed if it were granted.. On that point evidence had been heard. The next was that the committee had no jurisdiction to grant such a license That had been dealt with by the ' granting of the adjournment! and it had now the jurisdiction, so he would not raise the point now It was an objection always raised in these cases to allow any objector to come in, but the Inspector had nothing to do with it now The fourth objection was that to grant the application would be contrary to the express wishes df--the district as shown by the vote' at the last general election. That was purely a formal objection to allow any person who thought he • had a real objection or a principle is involved to come in behind the Inspector and make a statement before the committee. They —himself and the Inspectorhad no interest in the matter, They were not in the same position as the applicant. They were there, as they were at Taneatua, to prevent what might have been a great menace to the public The way baa been cleared lor him and he felt sure the committee would clear .away a great deal of extraneous nutter they had heard during the hearing of the application, and decide whether or not Matamata was entitled to a license The committee, by granting the a</journment, had given itself an opportunity to grant the license if it thought fit. In view of all the evidence that had been given from the locality he did not think hecould have got any further evidence from Matamata that would have helped in the matter at all. The "question, of opposing ' the application had been raised in Parliament, and he was sorry that if had been raised, as he had opposed it strongly on the last^ occasion on purely legal grounds., He had nothing to do with the merits of the case now except to submit the evidence of the police officers. He wished to male clear —because the matter had been mentioned in a place in which it seemed to him it should not have been mentioned — that ' this method of transplanting a license : from one point to another in a district had been successfully ; adopted many times, and under-: very diiferent circumstances. He simply made the broad distinction between the transfer of the . Ohiwa license with the unanimous consent of the committee- ± a license which was an absolute menace— to a place where it might be of some use, and the successful transfer of the Tanea- : tua license He felt q\ite certain * that the statements that had been made and the evidence that had • !)-cn given as to the possible-: rum and prospective breakdownot the Glaxo and other industries : it a license were granted would ■ not influence the committee a bin • It the committee, with its great latitude, and the knowledge its members had of the requirements -of the district, was satisfied that % a license was necessary, then it "' would be granted* If on the: Other hand they thought it premature they would not grant it. : and that is all the interest the ■ Inspector had in the matter - Mr Mays called: : Bartholomew Shechan, inspector : ot police tor Hamilton district, - who stated that he visited Matamata on Monday.last and inspected the new premises. If furnished they would provide reasonable accommodation. He had never received a complaint of any . excessive drinking in Matamata. Ontil a constable was stationed at Matamata he would consider t'-'e license a menace to the place. ■ He considered it necessary that . a constable should be stationed at Matamata. He was perfectly satisfied with the accommodation he bad obtained at Matamata, and his opinion was that Mata- . fliata was better oil"for accommo-