LAST WARNING.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVIII, Issue 10734, 3 November 1928, Page 7

LAST WARNING.

EOSELAND HOTEL LICENSE

S[AGISTRATE’S STRICTURES

LICENSEE FINED £ls AND COSTS.

John Carmody, licensee of the Roseland Hotel, Makaraka, was fined. £ls and costs on a charge of after hour trading by the. Magistrate. Mr E. C Levvey. S.M.. in the Police Court yesterday. The prosecution for selling liquor after hours on October 7 and keeping premises open for the sale of liquor after hours had been heard last week, the question of penalty being adjourned, the owner being called upon to show cause why the license should not he endorsed). On behalf of the owner, Mrs Hogan, Mr J. G. Nolan stated the. she was an elderly widow whose husband had for many years been licensee of the hotel. She had now retired from active management of the hotel, and was totally unaware of the present eases. When she had been informed she had taken steps to have the licensee quit the hotel. It was not until that morning that suitable arrangements for transfer of the li cense had been made and an application had just been lodged with ”■ licensing committee. The lintel was all Mrs Hogan possessed of her husband’s estate, and if the value of the license was affected in any way it would he serious to her. The magistrate remarked that that view might he all right if this were the first offence. He asserted, however. that some of the owners didn’ 1 care how the hotels were run so long as the rents were paid. If that were the attitude of the owners he intended dealing with them. Counsel submitted that the licensee had not been changed for two years, though his wife had been dealt with for a breach six weeks :v_ro. The owner had threatened the licensee t > take action on that occasion. The Magistrate commented that there were indications tha.t something was amiss and that there was gross carelessness in the control of the hotel, by reason of the fact Hr” there had been a' constant stream of men charged with being on the premises after hours.

Mr Nolan said that the owner now recognised that she should have acted. earlier when slie was informed th - charges were being brought. “I suppose someone collects the rent and attends to her business foi her.” asked the Magistrate. “Ts this constant stream of men on the premises not to be noticed, and . tti« .convict-on six weeks ago? Obviously something is amiss.” Counsel appealed to the Court to consider the*fact that the owner had arranged to have tlie licensee' quit the hotel- and was applying to +!'/' licensing Committee to grant him a month’s leave of absence, and to replace him with Mr. Airey. a wellknown hotelkeeper who . had never been convicted. Mr s. V. Beaufov, who represented Carmody, informed the Court that his client was very.ill. In this state of health it was obvious that lie could not take any active part in managing Hie hotel, which was run more or less by his wife, and it was very difficult for; a woman .to -handle the type of men who visited the. hotel. Hjs health would, prevent liis taking up the hotel business again. The. Magistrate said. that.. althqu"h lie was not sure ho was .doing right and ho felt that the license; she;; 1 ' be endorsed, he would not . .deal with the license on, this occasion. The licensee would he fined £ls and he issued a warning to the owner'that A the hotel came under. his notice again he would endorse the license without hesitation. Tho second charge' was withdrawn by leave of the Court.