THE OCCIDENTAL HOTEL.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 213, 2 June 1908, Page 9

THE OCCIDENTAL HOTEL.

THE NEW PREMISES. 'APPLICATION OPPOSED BY CITY COUNCIL. At \ the meeting of the Wellington C'it; Council on May 21 it ■ was dccided to an thoriso tho Town Clerk to object, on behai ; of tho ratepayers, fto, the granting of a pub lican's licenso for tho new building on Lamb ton Quay (on . tho flallarice Street corner) • It was understood that .there was anintentioif to 'dron tho licenso for', the Occidenta ■ Hotel (on, tlio corner of Lambton Quay anc Johnston Street), if tho license-for tho non building was granted. -The City Coiinci; ' . objects _as owner and lessor .of the section , on : . which tho present Occidental Hotel ; stands.. The grounds of objection taken bj w> Council wero:— (l).lhat tlio licensing of thosaid , , houso' is, not required in tho neigh- • bourhood: and ■■ "(2).-That'tho'quiet of. tho place in which such premises arc situate '■ '.'.■.Swill.*-bev'.disturbed'"if- a' license is / granted." ' Tho matter, was dea|t. with at the annual . mMting the'Wollingtoii Licensing Committee ; yesterday.'-■■Mr: Skerrett appeared for . tho .applicant (Mr. J. H. Fairbairn), and Mr. J. ,o!Shea-(City Solicitor)- for the City Cor- . poration. ■ ••• Mr. ■ O'Shca- first, asked the Committee to dcclaro their -intention in regard to the re- . nev.al. of the . present licenso. Ho did not think they, had/jurisdiction in the granting of a-now licenso. Dr.;-M'Arthur: Oh, havenlt-wo? We have every. jurisdiction. I havo gone into tho matter-very.-fully. ■ Mr. O'Snca held to a technical point regarding the.'withdrawal first of ,tho, application, for a ronew;al .of-the licensing of tne old building. -, That . application had not been . withdrawn, and he ask«l tho. Court to hear that.- application. on the 'notice filed in'the v Court. - The -City Corporation claimed that they, >.as of the land, had coiisider- . able', monetary .interest,, and had a right to be heard; in, the matter !of "the "renewal of tho ,- license.Ho submitted authorities. ■ ■ ; :'§'aid the. application, was for now. - license, ..'and was ,by .. tho present liconsoo of. .the: Occidental Hotel. In-tho .- caso of: the new licenso being : granted, ho proposed to "abandon his application for a renewal. :- .'Hfe asked'- that the application for &- license, for the-new,, building bo heard immediately.. Since the City , Corporation were the .objectors, ho' thought that Mr. 'John' Smith, a City Councillor,, should be disqualisittipg on tho Licensing-.Bench in a judicial position.. Tho objection- was not personal on counsel's - part, and he . would ; suggest, that-Mr.;/Smith bo tho sole. judgo .os to,his,action'in;the matter'.,',.'He understood Mr. Smith had not been present at the meeting of the City Council, when tho decision to' opposo tlio application lmd been mado;.nor.did,ho.thiiik he had had-anything to do with tho posting of circulars to members of-: ; the '-Committee'. ,If Mr. .Smith did* intend-to sit, .however).' counsel's remedy was . available : aftorwards, ; , ."Mr. -Skerrett.. pro..coeded tolqubto-a.'precedent to.,enforce his request! . •. . ... : . After;:# brief- discussion between i counsel- • ■ : and Mr. Smith, ■ tho latter ..said •he would . like to hear what, Mr. O'Shea had to say.: Mr.; O'Shea said tho ..body was elective, and. no doubt bad the elective .bias;- Ho endeavoured to'show .that .the' authority cited by Mr; Sterrett : was Tnot: analogous to the ■ present case. . ... Mr.;, Skerrett,; said the very clear. : He added, it!was true the members of the Licensing. . Committee were elected, . .andl'tbey,,'.mightf be• elected with -bias on : general, topics such,':as-.-on'.,the/matter-of ..pro--liibition, but they, were not to have bias on any specific matter, such as .'the present ap- . plication.' He' submitted' the Committee was a ju(liciar' tady,'| : ancl ''m -that respect the matter, did not differ from an ordinary civil action--in which the Corporation .part.-

Mr. . but'ultimately Air.' Smith, .conversing with _ thtf chairman,': announced his -intention tO ; WlthdfhW. -. I'' : V- ''- .-. I ''- .' i; - case}.'retailed' that; tho- mandate at - the '-last " election was that; the number of licenses ' should ; continue. . It, -was'r clear la'w' that,'the Committeo ' had; a right; to 'Consider an application for' a' new license, and to grant it-in' a caso such : as the; present,;. It ; had, been-Jeweled in the' . rCourt of?:-' Appeal vin- Now -'Zealand,- ' and - 'by : the l Houso, of . Lords .that it was lawful to apply, ■ fora; ,npw;, license ,to ; make; -up, a ■ vacancy..iWhicli.. at ! thesame meeting' was I found .to.:exisk;; ;holdi that I the;Committbo-;must |deaj ;: with. : the. applica- ■ ior a rcneii;al ;bofor6: a,ne]V; licenso was but r He submitted,, after.'.reading ;t-h6 : opinions of .the New Zealand;,Court 1 of:Ap-. ; P e al,;JudgM, that the r ooritrary"was the. case, Mr.. Sivfrrett ' proceeding .'further, when ■the-.;Court'intimated it was not necessary. '' .Proceeding-to tho 'facts of: tho 'case,' Mr. Bkerrett, said ho could. not.jiinderstand what. ; claim; the'Corporatipri had, 'oitlier in law or practice, for, ■their;.position.'. '-'Neither morally; nor legally-iliad:;thoy. tho: slightest tittle of claim: . to' tlio license on ■: the .''stated' grounds''was wholly' unjustifiable and- improper.- Ho'.''desired the fullest investigatioiii ' In 1873 a 'bare" leaso of'.tho , section. v on,-which' 1 the", old hotel ,stood—the hotel, not, 'then' in —was- granted t-0 Mr. Toxvrard. It; was 'an' absolutely baro lease.-: *;Tlioioasb'was afterwards acquired by Mr.f S. Diamond, who built tho present hotel. He-had mot-'been -b'qurid to build the hotel, and could : sKnt 'it up if ho chose. ' In 1885, under tho. Act of tho date, a renewal of tho ' lease was obtained iihder the Glasgow .system .of,',lea je.:, It;, would expire in five years, but thero existed the right of renewal. No covenants;existed'iiiider the. lease in. regard to .the hotel.' 'By tfio 'system of leaso: all that-tfio Corporation, would , get at tho explry of . the ; lease, arid tho subsequent sale at auction. would . bo tho increased 'ground ront. . 'The .Corporation had no "interest" .in the';' hotel; huilcfings, improvements,' or 'license. . Theso .bolonged! to! tho tenaint.' Under th'eao conditions,Voould' riot .'the tenant Use' the ' land for any purpose he pleased ?' Either thei . tenant, Mr.: Fairbairn, or Mr. KirTscaldio,'"wh6 had acquired the" reversion, could do' what lid liked with it. ' There seemed no doubt that ' tho Corporation' was endeavouring to ■-use, the' Committee as a means of screwing "r—he used tho word advisedly—a sum 'of money, out pf Mr. Fairbairn,- in order-te allow -tho "license to ,go through without difficulty. Mr. Fairbairn oould drop the license of the hotel when' he Jiked .arid no "one-could stop him. -What tight,-, therefore, had ' tho Corporation'to go "to the Committeo and say this was their property,, and the proprietor was doing a wrong to tho ratepayers? --They were'doing no wrong to-the City . Council, hut the Council were. s«ekingv-,to'do- a .w-rong in asking tho Committee.-to usei their influence as proposed.' Why.i/did. they,.'not. ; iipply- for; an 'injunction against. Mr. Fairbairn,,or a: requirement for him to proceed fpr his application for a,renewal?.- But,, apart from this, .counsel submitted thov. were not.'.the. owners under tho Licencing-.;'Act. ; Mr., Kirkcaldie was, the owner, within' the meaning of the statute, Mr'.' Fairbairn .was his tenant. As to Mr.': O'Shea's . argument, under Section 29 of tho Act of 1895,-he contended that Mr. Fairbairn ~could not, be said to have wrongfully neglected to apply for a renewal. The question w'asmot one as.to;whether: thero should bo another hotel in the city. Tho electors had .decided that point. , Tho only question was which, was tho , host site."'-., Upon that ground there could bo littlo or no differonco of opinion. Tho ono building was 35 years old, was wooden, and with the windows on two sides, practically blocked up. Tho othor was. an expensive brick building, with 77 rooms,' (exclusivo of thoso required for the licensee's use) and was generally a first-class hotel.; The Committee should have little difficulty. in making their choico. , Mr.: O'Shea submitted further legal argument .as to the applicant having "wrongfully '■ neglected, under Section 29 of the Act of 18,95, ..to' apply for a renewal, anil said that'",*the,:'provision' was thero to prevent a licensee doing away.with a license, and to deprive the owners of the property of their ownership rights. If tho license, was transferred, the probability was the Corporation would riot get the full valuo of the proporty. The'tenant's action was -wrongful, and tho Council had a right in opposing tho transfer.. Mr. Skerrett submitted rebutting argument on Mr. ,o'Shea's legal points. , Tho committee ;at this' stage adjourned ■until Monday next, ,