LICENSING COMMITTEE.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 7382, 4 June 1895, Page 2

LICENSING COMMITTEE.

THE PROVINCIAL HOTEL.

LICENSE GRANTED

After we went to press last evening Mr McLean, appearing in support of the application for a lioense for the Provincial Hotel, prooecded to call evidence to refute tho charges made by the objeotors. Patrick Gleeeon, licensee of the Provincial Hotel, said the lute W. E. Bamford left on his first visit to Sydney on the 27th May, 1894, and returned in Jaly. When he returned ho was in his usual oondition • he drank heavily in Sydney, and on the way over. On his return he stayed at tho Empire Hotel. Did all he could to keop Bamford from driking. Had no control over bim when he was away from his (witness's) hotel. Bamford did not take any liquor for about six inonthß previous to going on his second visit to_ Sydney. At that time he was receiving £5 a week from Home He returned to Napier on the Sth April, and called at the Provincial Hotel for his letters, but did not come to stay thereuntil five days later. He also asked for a loan, and he (witness) advanced him £25. Received a telegram from Bamford at Sydney asking for £10, whioh was sent. On 16th April received a promissory note from Bamford for £35 17s. After returning to Napier ho was for some time able to go about, and spent most of his time outside. During the last week of his life he oonfined himself pretty well to the housa. Daring the last month gave him very little drink. As a rule he had something before he oama down in the morning, and whether he obtained any more depended upon whether he came home sober. During the last week of hia illnees confined his supply to four small glasses per day. Did not notice the slightest change in him during the last week—he always Baid ho was getting better. He waa ptrfootly sensible and coherent, but on Sunday morning he did not look quite so well as usual. Told Dr. Jarvis that deceased was suffering from too much drink. Knew that Dr. Jarvis was a Prohibitionist, but had nothing: t) fear from him or anyone else. Deceased had no drink from the time he (witnoss) returned from church at 9 30 till the time of his death, with the exception of the small drop of brandy and water given him just as he died. To his knowledge deceased only had two glasses of liquor during the last twenty-four hours of his life. Refused liquor to him very frequently during the time he stayed at the hotel. Ho (witness) denied any justification for the allegations made by the petitioners, and repudiated them as a slander upon his character. By Mr Dinwiddie: Charged deceased £1 per week for board, whioh left him £4 for current expenses. Gave striot instructions that Bamford was not to reoeive more than four drinks a day during the last week of his lifetime. Believed that Bamford wanted By an to sleep in the same room so that the latter would be able to supply him with liquor at nit?ht. Bamford had previously been in the habit of getting some one to deep with him. Thought Bamford well able to take oare of himself at tha time, and did not care to interfere with his plaoß. Had objected to him bringing undesirable characters to the hotsl, and ho said he would do as he liked.

By Mr M'Lean: Bamford was a member of the Working Men's Club, and spent a good deal of his time there. Knew that during the six months he was sober he had occasion to send money away. Ho borrowed the £20 to pay a man named Sutton, hotelkeeper in Sydney, for debt oontraoted during the time he was over there.

Walter John Harding, cook at the Empire Hotol, stated that when Bamford returned from Sydney ho was drinking. After turning teetotaller, he slept with him (witness), and was well looked after Did not see him take a glass of iutoxioating liquor during the whole of the time. Saw him after his return from Sydney the seoond time, about nine days before his death. Asked him to have a drink ; he refused and ssij, "No; Gleeson won't give me any." Later, Bamford aßked for a shilling to get a drink. Had repeatedly seen both Mr and Mrs Gleeson refuse Bamford liquor. Know two men whom Mr Gleeson turned out of the hotel beoause they supplied Bamford with drink.

By Mr Dinwiddie : Could not give any reason why Bamford dosired to sleep in tha same room as witness.

Henry Oonnop deposed he had resided at Auckland for twenty years. Knew Mr Gleeson there as proprietor of fourdifforett hotels—never heard of any complaints of disorderly conduot or immorality preferred agaiest him. Could corroborate Inspector Broham'a report that Gleeson was a fit and proper person to conduot an hotel. Also knew Bamford Had„seen Gleeson order Bamford out of his hotel,\and heard him several times refuse drink to Bamford. Had never known Bamford to drink anything but beer. Strongly advieed him to give up drink. This was all the evidence, and the Gom>~~ mittee retired to consider the evidence.

On returning, Mr Turnbull announced that the Committee considered tho evidence before it did not appear to warrant the withholding of the lioense, and it had been decided by a majority of 6 votes to 2 to grant a renewal of the license.

On tha application of Mr Gleeson, the time of closing was extended to eieven o'olook as in the case of the other town hotels.

With regard to a question of costs raised by Mr M'Lean, Mr Turnbull said the Committee had considered thit, and had decided not to grant any.