Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.



Sir,— With what complacency some who sit on our Licensing Benches discuss tho granting of removals as though it was of no moment to tho licensee ; and some refuse on tho plea “not wanted,” although tho party seeks and is ready to pay L4O or more for it. Does it ever occur to them how an hotel comes into existence? Evidently no person can run an hotel without the permit of the Bench (I may here observe that if he had twenty permits and no public patronage he would close shop without an order from the Bench), whoso duty it is to investigate to see if the house is wanted, and the license is granted accordingly. Now, who are tho Licensing Bench hut the chosen servants of the public? and surely their successors must endorse their acta and not condemn them, or else it lands us in a pretty mess, being responsible for tho acts of our servants (according to law and justice) who make ducks and drakes of other people’s property. Observe, other persons’ property, not their own. One is almost inclined to ask How would they like it ? What a glorious thing it would be if we could run our Parliaments on the same lines (“ What is sauce for the goose,” etc.): Repudiate the acta of their predecessors ! Wo could soon clear ourselves of debt. There would be no injustice done if the house is not built and the license is refused. Are wo too wise to learn from our Victorian cousins, who adopt ■ the sensible method of submitting the plans instead of building the house, and then bare to move heaven and earth to get the license granted. This has been one of the fruitful causes of too many hotels. The Lord helps those that help themselves (so it is said), and in despite of the Lord Chief Justice of England’s ruling on the Congleton case; judicial discretion, not your will, etc. Some Benches take it upon themselves, through ignorance of their functions, to say the house is not wanted, and will do so until the hotelkeepers assert themselves and put us in for damages. There are laws more poteut than tho hash we call the New Zealand Licensing Act of 1881, There is not a new license granted since the passing of this Act, nor likely to be under such a one-sided contract, or even applied for, unless the house was unfortunately already in existence. There are three less whom the public have told, without the aid of the Bench, that they are not wanted; so we have but little to answer for in Dunedin,— I am, etc., Common Gumption. Dunedin, June 17.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

OUR LICENSING BENCHES., Issue 7935, 17 June 1889

Word Count

OUR LICENSING BENCHES. Issue 7935, 17 June 1889

  1. New formats

    Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.

  2. Hierarchy

    These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.

  3. Search

    Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.

  4. Search

    Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.

  5. Search facets

    Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.

  6. View selection

    Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.

  7. Tools

    Print, save, zoom in and more.

  8. Explore

    If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.

  9. Need more help?

    The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.