LICENSING COMMITTEE

Evening Star, Issue 7650, 28 June 1888, Page 2

LICENSING COMMITTEE

The City Licensing Committee sat this morning at the Police Court ; presentMessrs A. Sligo (chairman), H. Gourley, W. Woodlands, R. L. Stanford, and Dr Colquhoun. Patrick Fogerty applied for an eleven o'clock license for the Clarendon Hotel. The police reported that they had inspected the house, and found that it wanted repairing both outside and inside. Mr Wilson, the proprietor, promised that the necessary repairs should be carried out.—The license was granted. The Chairman made the following remarks :—I desire to make a statement respecting licenses granted to married women at the meeting held on the first of the month, and to point out that it has been stated that the Licensing Committee had objected to hearing counsel on behalf of the temperance societies. To this statement I give a most emphatic denial. The Committee may on occasions have stopped "counsel appearing on behalf of the various temperance societies," as they have frequently stopped counsel appearing for publicans. Although counsel appearing for an applicant has a distinct locus standi under the Act, and counsel appearing for the temperance societies has not, the Committee have never—so far as I can recollect—objected to hear both sides, although both have been told that the Committee had had enough of some particular case. The public have been told and retold that copies of the ' Temperance Herald,' containing His Honor Judge Williams's judgment respecting married women as license-holders, had been sent to all members of Committee, Well, as r ii itter of fact I did not chance to open the paper sent to me until some days after the licensing meeting, and I find that other members of the Committee were in the same state of blissful ignorance respecting the contents of that paper. But it did not make any difference—we were all perfectly well aware of tho judgment, and had agreed that if married women applied for licenses, and objections were raised, that we would hear the objections and afterwards decide; that if no objections were raised, we would grant the licenses, leaving the applicants to take the risk attached to their own proceeding, feeling assured that the parties applying would also be perfectly well aware of the decision which had been given. It will be recollected that the judgment referred to was given quite recently, and that it was somewhat of a surprise, the case on which it was given having been referred to His Honor the Judge on quite other grounds. The Committee do not raise any doubt as to the validity of that judgment, but were quite willing that the distinct issue involved in it should be again raised if anyone felt disposed to do so. It would possibly have been better for the licensees had we objected to the applications, adjourned the cases, and given an opportunity for other parties being submitted as applicants for the licenses ; but, as I have said, we were willing to allow the applicants to take whatever risk might attach to their own proceeding. Another point considered by the Committee was this: If they determined to refuse the applications, it appeared that it would be a necessary preliminary to inquire into the position of the applicants; and this members of the Committee were disinclined to do, It may be stated that we had some reason to think that one at least of the applicants was, and is, practically—perhaps really—in the position of a femmc sole. Either course the granting or refusal of the licenses —we knew might involve an appeal, and the Committee elected to grant the licenses, leaving the applicants to tike the consequences, tho Committee acting on the assumption that the applications were made advisedly, and with full knowledge of the Judge's ruling. I may add that even had the licenses not been challenged the Committee would have made it known that they would not again grant licenses to married women, unless, indeed, His Honor Judge Williams's decision had been reversed in the meantime.