HOTEL LICENSE

Greymouth Evening Star, 3 December 1925, Page 3

HOTEL LICENSE

AN AUCKLAND TRANSFER. (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, December 2. Applicatons for the issue of a publican’s license for the Thames Hotel and for its removal to new premises on 'the waterfront were opposed at the meeting of the Licensing Committee to-day. Mr Finlay, for Mr W. F. T. Grigsby, the applicant, said that Mr James Gleeson, the owner, had paid £23,000 for the building, and £lO,OOO would be spent on renovation and about £5OOO on furnishings. The license cost £3OOO, so that altogether approximately £41,000 was invested. If the applications were refused, it would mean financial rain for Mr Gleeson. He had heard it said that a hotel in Quay Street would be a temptation to sailors and wharf employees. Was not that a joke? Was there a sailor- or wharf labourer who does not know there is a hotel furtherup the street? “Are we to believe,” he asked, “that these men are so lacking in moral fibre that they could not resist the sight of an hotel?”

Mr McVeagh, for petitioners who are opposing the applications, maintained that the committee was not competent to grant the removal of the license, as it expired last June, and was now non-existent. The present Thames Hotel provided no accommodation except for bar and convenience premises. Therefore, it did comply with the requirements of the Licensing Act, and it was impossible, in the circumstances, for the Committee to grant a license on the renewal of one. All that the purchaser had at stake was the £3OOO paid for the license, because the building would still be worth what was paid for it. Mr Gleeson knew it was just a gamble, and he had done everything with his eyes just as open as if he had gone to Ellerslie and put £lOO on the tote 7 . Seamen and men engaged on the wharves would be tempted to go away from work, and the work of the port would be retarded. The likelihood .of accidents arising from carelessness would be aggravated if liquor was brought to the very door of the waterfront. The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow.