LICENSE DISPUTE

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 1, 1 July 1926, Page 9

LICENSE DISPUTE

THE AMBASSADORS CASE

ABSENTEE COMMITTEEMAN

'■'EXPLANATION ENTIRELY UN-

SATISFACTORY.".

f (By Telegraph.) / (Special to the "Evening Post.") AUCKLAND, This Day

': A request for an explanation of his absence from tho recent meeting of the Auckland Licensing Committee when the Ambassadors Hotel caso was decided, was forwarded last Thursday to Mr. A. Thompson by the Auckland Executive of the New Zealand Alliance. The alliance took the view that if Mr. Thompson had been present at the meeting and had honoured his undertaking to oppose the granting of the license to the Ambassadors Hotel, the license, could not have been granted. Mr. Thompson replied on Monday, enclosing an explanation of his absence. This was considered by the alliance yesterday, and to-day its dissatisfaction with his reply was conveyed to Mr. Thompson by letter. Mr. Thompson had not .up till last evening made any i. answer to the alliance's latest letter. The text of tho correspondence is as follows: —Writing to Mr. Thompson on 24th June, the alliance says: "On Tuesday next the executive will consider the action to bo taken in reference to your failure to act in accord with the representations made by you to our committee concerning the Ambasadors Hotel license. You will remember that immediately before the Licensing Committee election in March ' last, you attended a meeting in these rooms and represented that tho grant or refusal of tho license to tho Ambassadors Hotel was an issue in the election, and that the return of the old committee would ensure refusal. You will remember further that you stated that Messrs. J. Thevethick, E. Leydon, G. Lethaby, and yourself had voted against the application in December last, and that Mr. T. Grace had voted in support of it. You also urged that our committee should take action to secure the return of yourself and your co-members, and so ensuro keeping the waterfront free from a license. EXPLANATION DEMANDED. "In view of these facts the members of our committee feel that an explanation of your conduct is due to them. You asked for their confidence i-nd support, and having gained it, you acted in complete disregard of your obligations by absenting yourself from the annual meeting of the Licensing Committee. In announcing the decision of the committee on sth June, the chairman stated that the majority of the elected members had decided to grant a license. From this it appears that, had you been present and voted against the giant, the decision would have depended upon the casting vote of the chairman, Mr. E. C. Cutteu, S.M. This ■would have meant refusal. In the absence of an adequate explanation, the members of the alliance can only conclude that you arc responsible for the granting of an application you were in honour bound to defeat. The alliance asks for an explanation. You Will understand that this letter, and' any communications that follow aro not to be regarded as private.'' [ SOLICITOR GIVES EXPLANATION.. Mr. Thompson replied on Monday, enclosing a letter from his solicitor, Mr. John Gregory, "which," Mr. Thompson, writes, i'explains my absence, and which you will admit I was justified in acting upon." He added that it was his intention to resign from tho committee. Mr. Gregory's letter, which is dated 9th June and is addressed to Mr. Thompson, is as follows:" As your absence from the meeting of the Licensing Committee has been, commented on, I would like to put on record tho fact that you, on Ist Juno, consulted me on the attitude you should adopt in view of certain Tumours you had heard as to the possibility of your right to sit on the committee being challenged, owing to your being chairman of directors and president of the Auckland Chartered' Club. After discussing the matter with you I advised you that there was some doubt as to your eligibility, and in view of the importance of the matters to be dealt with at tho licensing meeting on 3rd June, it would be better for you not to sit at the licensing meeting, and thus possibly jeopardise any decision of the committee. You then decided to go to Wellington on tramway business, and wrote a letter to the chairman of the Licensing Committee apologisng for and explaining your absence." ALLIANCE RESOLUTION. To Mr. Thompson's communication, the alliance to-day replied as follows:' "At a meeting of tho alliance held yesterday, the following resolution was carried: 'That the letter bo received, and that this committee records its conviction, (1) that in view of the fact that at the opening of tho proceedings on 2nd June last the chairman of the Licensing Committee indicated that. Mr. Thompson's absence was duo to his occupation with tramway business, the explanation now given must be regarded as entirely unsatisfactory; (2) that it was the duty of Mr. Thompson to meet any challenge that was likely to be made to his eligibility as a member of tho Licensing Committee, and that a decision to avoid such challenge could be reached only in disregard of the obligations of his office; (3) that in viow of tho representations made by Mr. Thompson to the committee of the alliance and of tho support secured for his co-members and himself, his failure to attend the meeting of the Licensing Committee at which an application for a license for the Ambassadors Hotel was discussed, constituted a serious abuse of the confidence reposed hi him and a violation of the principles of good faith on which our public life is founded."