LICENSING COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2252, 21 June 1881, Page 3

LICENSING COURT.

OHEISTOHDEOH. Tuesday, June 21. fßeEore J. Nugent Wood (chairman), R. J. S. Harman, Or. L. Lee, and H. J. Tancrcd, Bsqs., Oommissioners.J Adjouenbd Applications. —Mr Stringer, on the behalf of B, Cay, applied for an hotel license for a building at Sumner. The hear* ing had been adjourned on the 7th inst, for the production of amended plans. Mr Salter objected on the part of Mr Bell, a resident of Sumner, He contended that the clerk of the Court, not baying complied with the provisions of the Licensing Act of 1873, which ordains that the names of . persona intending'to apply for licenses, with descriptions of the premises which ore intended to be licensed, snould be advertised, his client had not been able to make his objection at the last sitting of the Court. Mr Stringer submitted that no notice of objection had been lodged, and the present communication from Mr Salter could not be listened to. The Bench agreed with him, and refused to entertain the objection, Mr Slater appeared on behalf of another objector, and was similarly dealt with. Mr Thomas also wished to object on the part of Pat terson, licensee of the Marine Hotel, Sumner, who he said had been spoken of at last sitting in a way not warranted by the facts. Mr Thomas put in a petition signed by a number of freeholders to the effect that a now house was not required. The Chairman said that the premises not being in existence for which a license was sought, it was out of the power of the Court to entertain the application of Mr Day, although they were still of opinion that a house, with suitable accommodation, was required at Sumner, and that the plan exhibited by Mr Stringer on behalf of Mr Day showed such a building as they named. Mr Stringer said he was satisfied with that expression of opinion. Mr Slater supposed that what had fallen from the Bench would not place Day in any bettor position than any other competitor who might hereafter apply for a license it he had provided suitable premises. The Court—“ Certainly not. The application is refused ; the Bench cannot entertain it."

In be Ebnbwal to 0. Lewis.—Mr Thomas applied for a temporary transfer of the license of the Bicoarton Hotel to Cornelius Dyer. He put in a number of letters of recommendation from well-known citizens, and tho necessary documents to prove that the transfer was intended to be lona fide. Mr Thomas further stated that Dyer was prepared to go into possession immediately on the transfer being granted. He pointed out tho hardship that would accrue to others’ if the house were closed. Mr Garrick, for the freeholders, S. Manning and

Co,, stated that tho lease had been drawn with the utmost stringency to prevent the improper conduct of the house, and what nan occurred had, of course, been perfectly beyond their control. If the house were pissed his clients would lose £2OOO. The President sari he supposed Manning and Co. were business men enough to have secured themselves. Mr Garrick said to a certain extent they had, but it was impossaihlo to protect themselves against the effects of their tenant being put out at a moment s notice. After retiring, the Bench said they had no wish to punish anyone but Dyer were put into possession, and liswu cleared out by the night of the 23rd mat., they would at their adjourned sitting grant a temporary transfer to Dyer, otherwise the license must lapse. Mr Thomas said the time was short, but he would see that nothing but accident should prevent the carrying out of tho order of the Court Othbb Licenses. —A renewal was granted to Amyes on condition that ho transferred to Sawtell and Sutherland before the certificate issues. The requirements of the police having been complied with in tho oases of J. Stringer, F. Boot, E. Brinkman —Hirons, and J. Belgrave, their licenses were renewed. Tho Court then adjourned till Monday, June 28tb, when tho case of the Riccarton Hotel will be finally settled.