Suburban Groceries Refused Wine Licences

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28224, 12 March 1957, Page 10

Suburban Groceries Refused Wine Licences

Three applications for wineseller’s licences at suburban groceries were refused by the Christchurch Licensing Committee yesterday on the ground that the licences were not required in the neighbourhoods for which they were sought. The applicants were Charles Baldwin, for a licence for a grocer’s shop in Garden road. Fendalton, and Wardells, Ltd., for licences for a shop at 223 Papanui road and a shop at 2478 Riccarton road. For Wardells, Ltd., Mr R. W. Edgley said that both premises could be adapted in any way the committee required if a licence was granted. Completely separate parts for the sale of New Zealand wines and cider could be provided. Walter Edward Alsop, managing director of the company, said that last year he had applied, on behalf of his company, for a wineseller’s licence at the firm’s premises in Cashel street. It had been granted by the committee, but when an appeal had been made to the Licensing Control Commission the appeal had been upheld. At the commission hearing, Mr A. M. Goulding, chairman of the commission, had asked why he did not apply for a wine-seller’s licence for the two shops in respect of which the application was now made. Mr Alsop said. That was after the witness had referred to the fact that 600 customers had signed a form signifying that they wished the firm to have a licence. Supporting evidence of the customers’ demand was given by Frederick Street, assistant manager of the company. “Impertinent” The applications were impertinent, Mr J. G'. Leggat, counsel for 10 objectors, submitted. “The evidence consisted of a belated wail that the Licensing Commission had disallowed an application which this committee had earlier allowed,” he said. “The evidence is nothing more than an intimation that Wardells would like a wine-seller’s licence. There is nothing to show that there is any particular need in either of I the two areas for such a licence. If every aside was used as evidence before another committee, then Judges, Magistrates, and chairmen of judicial committees

would be subject to continual embarrassment.” '

Mr Leggat submitted that the Papanui premises were not suitable for the issue of a wine licence, and that the Riccarton shop was no more than an uncompleted shell. There were hotels within convenient distance of the proposed Papanui shop, Mr Leggat said, and there was evidence that the needs of the area could be supplied by them. A similar position applied in Riccarton. Douglas Stallard, licensee and manager of the Carlton Hotel, and Reginald Herbert Rattray, a director of the company owning the Bush Inn . Hotel, gave evidence that there was no unsatisfied demand in their areas. A grocer in Riccarton road foi’ the last 15 years and a half, H. R. Moore, said that he had received no requests for wine in that time. “Need and Desirability’’ The application of Baldwin was a question of need and desirability, said Mr G. S. Brockett. The nearest licensed premises—the Carlton Hotel—was 1 3-10 miles away. There was no place of worship, hospital or school in the immediate vicinity. Five witnesses were called in support of the application, and each said that the granting of a licence would be of benefit to the area, and it would be more convenient for them to purchase wines at Baldwin’s store than from the Carlton Hotel. Mr Leggatt, for the objecting parties, questioned the witnesses on the extent to which they had made use of the service offered by the Carlton Hotel, and submitted that there was no evidence that the hotel’s delivery service was inadequate. The applicant was attempting to gain the benefit of the remunerative trade from the sale of liquor, he said. Announcing the committee’s decisions, the chairman (Mr Raymond Ferner, S.M.) said that in the case of Baldwin’s application the decision was unanimous: in the other two it was by a major~On the application of Mr Leggat. the committee allowed £4 4s costs on each application to the objectors.

Mr E. Somers appeared for Mrs A. I. L. Hancock, of the Riccarton Hotel, who joined with the objectors against the Riccarton application.