A DANCE HALL.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20630, 20 August 1932, Page 6

A DANCE HALL.

CANCELLATION OF LICENSE. CITY COUNCIL SUED. Alleging that lie had been wrongfully deprived of the use ol the Dorothy Dance Hall, 241 Cashel .street, by the cancellation ol' his license, Michael Thomas Hall, ol' Christchureh, claimed l'roni the Christ-church City Council iu the Magistrate's Court yesterday the snm of £IOO damages. The claim was based on loss of revenue from the hall between December Bth, 1931, to January 27th, 1932; the permanent loss of thfe lessees of the hail; and the temporary loss of the patronage of the former users of the hall. Mr H. A. Young, S.M., was on tho Bench.

Counsel for the plaintiff said that the latter was now the proprietor of the Shades Hotel. He had held licenses for the Dorothy Dance Hall for three years. Everything went satisfactorily until December Bth, 1931, when the Council complained about tho conduct of patrons of the hall, but plaintiff had received no complaints previously. He received a notice to attend a meeting of tho By-Laws Committee of the Council. and with Bryson and Evans, who rented tho hall from him, did so. An assurance was given tho committee that a patrol would bo put on duty to supervise the conduct of patrons. Hall Mas sui-prised, therefore, when ho received notice of tho cancellation of the liceuso. A petition to residents disclosed that none had any tiling to say against tho hall. It was submitted that the plaintiff had boon given no proper opportunity to present his case, and the City Council had acted oppressively, neglr, gentlj', and arbitrarily. Second counsel for plaintiff submitted that. the Council's decision was void through its failure to act judicially. Jn evidence, tho plaintiff said that lie. left tho Dorothv Danco Hall about eight weeks ago. When the license was cancelled the hall was rented by Bryson and Evans, and plaintiff's average e'nrnnigs would be between £6 and £7 a week. There had been no complaints until Inspector Hardio said he had roooivod a letter of complaint from a l'iccarton man. Witness said that Cr. Lyons had told hi in that the B.v-Laws Committee had not had sufficient evidence to cancel the license, but the visit of an inspector to residents had shown that- all but one had complaints to make.

Cross-examined witness said that about .150 to 180 dancers usuallr attended the dances in the lmll. There would generally be only about six or seven motor-cars, and some niot.or-eycle*. Witness said that he considered his responsibility regarding the inside of the hall to cease when it was sub-let. It was in his own interests to sec that it was run properly. At 110 time did he see any evidence of the behaviour of which there had been complaints. He was not aware that dancers were not allowed to leave the hall and return to it. Witness admitted that if such conduct as had been complained of actually had taken place,, it would be obnoxious to the publicCounsel: Then if it is shown that (here was such conduct von would have no complaint against the cancellation of your license.—That is so. You arc not suggesting that the Council is acting nfalic.ioiisly ?—No, but J say there is a mistake.

Other Evidence. Peter Bryson, of 433 Cambridge terrace, said He had been ruuning dances at the Dorothy Hall for three years. He had had ten years' experience in running dances, and hp considered the conduct of the patrons or the Dorothy Hall very good, although they were noisy at times. Harold E. Kdwards, salesman, said ho had been working for Mr Bryson as AI.C. at the Dorothy Hall. The conduct of patrons compared favourably with that of any other hall :n Christchurch. To counsel: AVhat happened outside the hall was no concern of his. He saw very little liquor there during his two years as M.C. Hugh Edwards, 103 Salisbury street, said he had been gunning the dances at the Dorothy Hall in partnership for about three years. At the meeting of the committeo of the Council, the suggestion of Mr Bryson that a patrolman bo appointed to supervise conduct outside the hall, appeared tp meet with approval. He thought the committee had treated the matter as trivial. Witness was surprised when he heard that the license had been cancelled. Case for Defence. Counsel tor defendant in opening his ease raised two non-suit points, first, an objection to tlie competency of the present tribunal, and second, the lack of proof of notice on the part of the Council. He said that verbal complaints jjad from time to time been made to the Council, but the parties who made them were unwilling to be mixed up in any proceedings. The complaint of McCailum was the first specific one in writing, and alleged (1) hoodlum conduct ; (2) disgraceful language; (3) j despoiling the footpath; and (4). drinking. Inspector Hardie visited the locality, and found that the complaint was corroborated by a neighbouring resident, Wilkins. Hall was interviewed by the inspector, asked for an explanation, and told that the continuation of his license was imperilled. | Hall denied the complaint, and maintained that the regulations had been complied with. He would not discuss the _ matter further, and became abusive. As a result of the inspector's report, ,i_ letter wa« sent to Bryson asking him to show cause why the license should not be cancelled. Bryson was the lessee of the hall, and not the licensee, but he showed the letter to Hall, and the latter admitted that he knew its contents. Hall, Bryson, and Evans visited the City Council Chambers and Bryson and Evans were called in to the committee meeting. Bryson explained that he was merely the lessee and llall was then called in. The general nature of the complaints was represented, as well as specific allegation,s of McCailum. Counsel submitted that the, parties had the opportunity 1 then to refute the charges. At the time no actual decision was made bv the committee. Following this meeting, a further enquiry was made, and this confirmed the allegations made, and it was recommended that the license be cancelled. This wa,s subsequently done.

Evidence of Councillor. M. E. Lyons, a member of tlie ByLaws Committee, in evidence, said that quite a number of complaints were received and referred to the Cliiof Inspector for. report. This was in the J fitter part of October last year. Part ol the inspector's duty Was to approach the licensee and seek some reasonable explanation. A report was received, and as a result a letter was written to Bryson, who was conducting the dances. A meeting of the By-Laws Committee was held. Or, Andrews was m tbe chair, but later left, and witness took the chair. Bryson and his partner appeared. Hall appealed also. McCallum's letter was read. It was emphasised that this was not an isolated complaint, but that there wore others. Hall denied everything, and refused to take any responsibility for good conduet around the precincts of the hall. Witness had asked Bryson if the lat> ter would employ a patrolman if the committee found it unnecessary to cancel the license. Bryson agreed to do this. _ No decision was made by the committee at the time, and as it was not wished to do any injustice to the licensee, the inspector was ordered to make enquiries further afield than be-