CITY HOTELS

Evening Post, Volume XCI, Issue 144, 19 June 1916, Page 8

CITY HOTELS

LICENSING COMMITTEE

ADJOURNED MEETING APPLICATIONS FOR RENEWALS. ; Further consideration was given.. to applications for renewal of hotel' licenses at an adjourned meeting of the Licensing ■^Committee to-day. Mr. W. G. Riddell, ISiM., presided, and other members preient were: Messrs. R. Fletcher, G. Tiller, IG. J. Petherick, W. J. Helyer, and J. Smith • • ■ NEW ZEALANDER HOTEL. * ; Prior to the taking of evidence in the -remaining applications, the decision of jthe committee was announced in the case ;of the New Zeala-nder Hotel. ■- ■ Mr. Riddell stated that the committee was not altogether satisfied with the planner in which the house had been during the past year. According to the evidence, the licensee had, during the past "few-months, obtained ibe services of a manager, and the comconsidered that this manager had "not perhaps had sufficient time to show 'the necessary improvement. The committee was prepared to give.the licensee the manager au opportunity to concluct the house? Li a proper manner, as , .the majority of the houses in Welling■ton were being conducted, and accordicg to Statute. The committee therefore had decided to adjourn the application 'until the next quarterly sessions. By ' that time the manager and the licensee gtyould be able to show whether or not they could conduct the house properly. ;', Mr. T. Young, who represented the licensee (Mrs. E. M. ■ Davey), said that the decision of the committee raised a slight legal difficulty. ' If the application were adjourned, and then not grant'e9, the owner of the premises could hot apply for a new license. He suggested that the .committee might grant the license in the meantime on the con-Hit-ion that if the next police report was unfavourable, the licensee, should sell out, if required to do so by the Licensing .Committee. - 'Mr. A. W. Blair, on behalf of the owner of the premises, agreed with this view, and stated that his client was a widow and the hotel constituted her sole means of livelihood: ;'lnspector Hendrey ■ quoted a recent .Auckland case in which & decision was "given that after an adjournment, if a hostile report were piestnted by the pclice, "the license would have to be -transferred within 14 days. ■ . . • Mr. Riddell, after consultation with the committee, said the committee was of-tlis-fOpinion that the decision should staiTdrahd" at the end of the time suggested, i| the police report was not favourable," thVappiication would be refused, ih order to safeguard the owner of the property the committee would in that case adjourn the case again, and would, at the end of a month, review the license if it were, transferred. .'•]■" i ' IMPERIAL HOTEL. >In regard to the Imperial Hotel, the Chairman said that from the evidence the committee had . decided .that the Jfotel had been;; conducted in an improper manner,"and'tiiere was some evidence of excessive drinking. The committee had decided that,in"view of the evidence the 'license would 'not' be renewed to the ■present holder (T.; S. M'Guire). The .application would, be adjourned until the next quarter sessions-on condition, that the present -holder-transfer the license within twenty-one days. "; NATIONAL HOTEL.' '• Having heard Mr. T. Young, who appeared for the licensee, and Inspector Hendrey, in. regard to the' application In connection with the National Hotel, the committee decided to accept the 'statements of both sides as contained in the .Magistrate's notes,! when.the licensee ■was fined in .the'Lower Court for per- I mitting drunkenness on his premises, | Jthen a soldier in uniform was there at an illegal hour. For this the .licensee Kad been, convicted, but his license had rjtot been, endorsed. This conviction was the main ground for the police. opposition to the renewal of the license. , i'The Chairman said that the action of >the licensee, for'■which'he had been convicted, was most-improper. •• He had, '.Ebwever, been fined for*.it, "arid, as it .appeared ;to ,'be.rthe only conviction1 .against the licensee, the committee • did not propose to deal with the license. At the same time, the committee wished to point out to the licensee the serious j ■'nature of the risk he had taken. j Z THISTLE HOTEL; • In connection with the application for j ■a!renewal of the license, of the Thistle Hotel, Sergeant O'Halloran said that on i one visit he found the house and yard j to be in a very dirty state.r Complaints j vjere frequently received by the police j in regard to "Sunday trading, and a man : ,was always about the house, apparentlywatching' for the police. Last night this j man tried to prevent him from getting ! into the'hotel after hours, and.the man •put his back to the door and shouted, "•Here's the police!" a couple of times. Lately the house had not been so much frequented by undesirable women as had foeen the case; in the past. The class of men who frequented the house were a rough class, but he could not say there vjas a very great deal of drunkenness in the hotel:-?There was-an excellent barman at the hotel. ■ j

*|In reply .to ,Mr. IV Young, who appeared for the licenses (William Hannafih), the-, witness stated that the'trade in tlie house was a difficult one to handle"; His argument was that more supervision sh'ould be exercised.

fSub-InSpector M'Kinnon stated that on tlie occasion of one of his visits to the Kotel he found the premises to be dirty. He told the licensee of this, and visited the premises again some time later but found no improvement. On the occasion of a third visit the kitchen had had istoething done to it, but the remainder •of the house, the yard, and the conveniences ■•'were iii a very, dirty state. The ,-li6use was by no means fit for /the reception of guests. Some of the bedding in ■the rooms was " not too clean."

<;To Mr...Young: It might be difficult to ikeep the house clean. He did not speak" particularly to the licensee about the [■bedding, but made a general complaint to him. '

-Constable Cattenach, Sergeant Lewin, and Constable M'Kinley gaye similar evidence. • '

"■William Hannafln, the licensee, said ,ihat when the police drew his attention to a few small matters requiring attention he had them done. -There was nothing dirty about the house, and no mention was made about bedding.' 'ffo Inspector Hendrey: He considered that the premises were clean and well &ept. His porter had no instructions io watch for the police, and had never 4ried to obstruct the police or to prevent!them from coming in. Henry Hull, a painter, gave evidence that he was called in by the licensee and did. some work for him. He knew ■the house fairly well and could see little iO'take exception to. Jo Inspector Hendrey: The work he did was papering'and painting in the hall, and one or two rooms. 'Mr. MawKinney said that the house gs)ierally i ,.was well; cqndiicted, and upstairs itwas beyond reproach.

Inspector Hendrey :; He, liad been upstairs in the, house some nwrnths a-gb. •C. Jiggie, Inspector of Nuisances in the employ of trie City Corporation, said

that he inspected the premises on 19th May, and found them quite satisfactory under the conditions. The outside buildings were' somewhat dilapidated. The inspection was made in the ordinary course of his duty. ■

George Johnston, a railway employee who lives near the Thistle Hotel, said he was a patron of the house and would not be so if it were dirty or ill^kept.

Mrs. Hannafin, wife of the licensee, denied . the" evidence, that the upstairs portion of the house' was dirty and illkept. 'No complaint'had been made on this score by the police.

Subsequently the Chairman said that the committee was satisfied that the police evidence as to the conduct of the hotel and the state of the premises had been substantiated. ■ The application would be adjourned for three months, during which time the licensee would have an opportunity of satisfying the committee of his ability to keep the premises clean and conduct the house properly. ... ■ CENTRAL HOTEL. Mr. 0. N. Beere appeared for S. J. Whiteford, who made application for a renewal of the: license of the Central Hotel. ' . . Sub-Inspector M'Kinnon . said that when he visited the hotel', the' licensee had pointed out only three bedrooms for the use of the travelling public. The rooms were not in a good state of repair. Downstairs the dust was thick all over the. place, and some glass was broken. Even in the bar, which bore most" evidence.of attention, he pointed out cobwebs to -the licensee. The latter then told him he had "suM out. The place at that time was merely a beer shop; although if the staff were accommodated elsewhere there would be the required number of rooms for the 'use of the travelling public. To Mr. Beere: The licensee haS since informed him that the necessary accommodation had been provided, but he (witness) had not had an opportunity of making another inspection. The untidiness and dirt downstairs he complained of was not inside but outside the storeroom. The kitchen and the sittingrooms were fairly well kept. In addition to the three bedrooms pointed out. by the licensee as being for the travelling public there- was a sittingroom. Mr.. Beere said that Mr. Whiteford had sold out and that the purchaser (Mr. M'Donald) had requested him not,to do any papering, as he wanted to choose the papers * himself. The difficulty in regard, to the public accommodation had now been overcome, and the new licensee did not mean to have any of his staff living on the premises. In reply to Mr. Riddell, Inspector Hendrey said that the staff "practically filled the whole of the house. There was no complaint about the conduct of the house. The six rooms required to be provided for the travelling public could bo provided. 1 On the suggestion of the Chairman, the decision of the committee - was deferred in order to give the police an opportunity of: again inspecting the premises to see if what was necessary had been done. After the luncheon adjournment, Inspector Hendrey said that another inspection of the premises had just been made, and that with the exception of one room no repairs had been done inside. At present^ unless the dining-room. and sitting-room were counted, there were not six rooms for the < use of • the public. . ■■■ ■ Mr. Blair, for the owners of the pro- ] perty, said, that certainly the dining- j room of the hotel was always included I in the numjjer of roo'ms. required to be | provided for the use of the public. In reply to the Chairman, Inspector Hendrey said that three rooms would require to be papered. . ■ Mr. Beere said that if- the license were granted he would. personally guarantee that £100 would be spent on internal repairs during the next twe months. ' . -

The committee adjourned the,application ' for, a month in order that the necessary repairs should be carried out. Mr. Blair said that this would greatly interfere with the completion of the sale of the property. On the application of MrJ Beere the adjournment; was made for a period of ten days, instead of one month,- so as not to interfere with the completion of the sale. •' ■