Application For Wine Licence Refused

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30560, 1 October 1964, Page 9

Application For Wine Licence Refused

An application by the New Zealand Farmers Co-operative Association of Canterbury, Ltd. (Mr B. McClelland), for a reS€ ders’ licence in respect of its Cashel street premises was dismissed by the Canterbury Licensing Committee in a reserved decision issued yesterday.

The case was heard on September 1 and September 29. The evidence in support of the original application was heard by the committee on September 3, 1963. This application was adjourned so a preliminary question of jurisdiction could be determined. Subsequently it was held that the applicant company was not authorised by its memorandum of association to hold a wine resellers’ licence and the application was then dismissed. In 1963, the Sale of Liquor Act, 1962, was amended to overcome the difficulty facing the company and a new application was filed. It was not now challenged, said the chairman (Mr E. A. Lee, S.M.) that after the amendment, the committee was empowered, if it was so minded, to grant the present application. In giving the decision of the committee, the chairman said plans had been made to establish an attractive wineshop, and having regard to the reputation of the company the committee found facilities and service would be of the very highest standard.

It appeared from the point of view of the applicant and its customers the licence would be a very satisfactory amenity. It was proposed to stock the wines of eight producers. Ground of Objectors Objections were based on the grounds that the licensing of the premises was not required having regard to the facilities already in the area, and that having regard to the other business conducted on the premises it was undesirable that the premises should be licensed for the sale of wine. There were nine hotels all stocking New Zealand wine within 500 yards of the proposed premises. The committee’s view was that the licence was not required in the locality having regard to the facilities already available. It was proposed that the wine shop would be in a corner of the grocery section, which would be sealed off from the remainder of the store. The committee felt that the standards of control and supervision of the sale of liquor should never be relaxed, and the responsibility of ensuring that only persons lawfully entitled thereto were supplied with liquor must be carefully discharged. “A self-service store with the system outlined in the evidence in this case could almost certainly not provide an adequate standard of supervision,” said the committee. The committee felt the operation of a wine shop in the circumstances outlined in the evidence in support of the application would be undesirable. The committee was unanimous in its decision that the application should be dismissed. Quotas On Supplies Giving evidence in opposition to the application, Robert George Fitzhardinge Kingscote, a wine and spirit wholesaler, said he was managing director of Fletcher Humphreys and Company, Ltd., chairman of directors of Frank A. Cook, Ltd., and chairman of the Canterbury Wholesale Wine and Spirit Merchants Association.

had been almost impossible, and there were quotas on certain varieties, said Kingscote. As well as having to refuse a request from the GovernorGeneral, his company had also been unable to supply table wines of one leading New Zealand brand to the Hermitage at Mount Cook, and that brand had had to be removed from th? hotel’s wine list. He said he was prepared to take air reliable, consistent New Zealand wines, but had been refused in most cases when he tried to get quotas. Many vintners could dispose of all their wine in Auckland. The witness said he could not see that the granting of the application would assist New Zealand wine-makers. The applicant was a most reputable company, but its shop was surrounded by hotels, merchants, and existing wine resellers. Purpose of Legislation Questioned by Mr McClelland, the witness agreed that the purpose of the present legislation was to find outlets for New Zealand wines. He agreed that it was intended to help all 75 New Zealand wine-makers, and not just the three whose products he dealt in.

Kenneth Charles Meyers, a director of Bishop and Company, Ltd., said that although the more acceptable brands of New Zealand wine had been supplied on a quota system. he doubted whether that would continue after the next two or three years. Both the quantity and quality of New Zealand wines were improving. But with the lesser-known brands the wine differed from year to year, whereas bigger winemakers had big stocks and were able to blend their wines to produce wine of a consistent quality. Asked by Mr McClelland whether there would not be a market for the other brands, those which were not the best, the witness said: “My taste is simple—l only want the best. There’s a lot I wouldn't want to sell.”

To Mr R. A. Young, appearing for five objectors, he said that the other makers apart from three or four leading brands had made no attempt to market their wines in the South Island. Eric Noel Black, director of Wine Cellars (N.Z.), Ltd., with three wine reselling shops in Christchurch, told the committee that Western Vineyards, which claimed in a letter to the applicant to be well stocked, had not been able to fill his orders for more than a year. “Gave It Away” One other New Zealand wine was of such poor quality that he had been unable to sell it. “I gave it away,” he said. “It was—well, I’d better not say too much about it.” Told not to hold his punches, the witness said that the wine In question was “good paint-remover.” He said that large numbers of wine-makers had less than 20 acres of land in grapes, and could sell all their wane in Auckland. Sometimes they could not even supply their own markets. Mr Young submitted to the committee that all good New Zealand wines already had a ready outlet, and indeed there were quotas to see that the popular ones were shared among the outlets. He said the applicant had not made out even a prima-facie case. Mr McClelland said it was clear that in Christchurch seven brands of New Zealand wine were available, but others could be bought only in very limited quantities from very few sellers. The applicant would supply another outlet, for New Zealand wines. The committee consisted of

The supply of New Zealand table wines in Christchurch

Messrs Lee (chairman), M. E. Jenkins, T. F. Carter, H. J. Mortlock, and W. E. Olds. The application was opposed by Bishop and Company, Ltd, Maling and Company, Ltd, Frank A. Cook, Ltd, Fletcher, Humphreys, and Company, Ltd, Wine Cellars (N.Z.), Ltd, all represented by Mr Young; Rowe and Company (N.Z.), Ltd, Glenvale Distributors, Ltd, and R. E. Grimwood, all represented by Mr A. Hearn; and F. W. Mercer, Wardells, Ltd, and A. F. G. McGregor, and other hotel proprietors in the district, all represented by Mr J. G. Leggat CLOSING WHITE HART The Committee granted the application for authority to close the White Hart Hotel during October. The holder of the hotel premises licence, T. S. H. Holdings, Ltd (Mr A. Hearn) applied for an order authorising the closing of the whole of the premises on October 28, and an order authorising the closure of the premises for meals and accommodation from Sunday, October 4. The application was not opposed. Mr P. G. S. Penlington appeared for the lessees, Jack Harris, Ltd, and the holder of the manager’s licence, W. E. J. Davie.

Mr R. E. Wylie appeared for the Canterbury Wine and Spirit Co, Ltd, a contributory mortgagee, and Mr N. G. Clark appeared for New Zealand Breweries, Ltd, another contributory mortgagee.