SYDENHAM LICENSES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXV, Issue 9447, 23 June 1891, Page 3

SYDENHAM LICENSES.

adjourned meeting of,the, ■ , . COMMITTEE. i The adjourned meeting cf the Sydenham Licensing Committee was held at the Borough Council Chambers, at s.ui. yesterday; present-—the Rev. L. Si. rs’.tt (Chairman), Messrs G. J. Miuviu, R. Beattie, AY. J. Rudd, and J. Hopper. The room was crowded with publicans, prohibitionists, and thoir respective supporters, and there wan a largo attendance of the legal profession. CLUB HOTEL. Stephen Lawrence,'applicant. Mr Stringer appeared for the applicant. The Chairman said that the Committee would grant the license under protest, pending the decision of the Court of Appeal as to the extent of ita powers. Mr Siringer asked if the Committee would grant the extension to eleven o’clock, as formerly. Tho Chairman said that the license would be a ten o’clock one. * SANDHI DOE UOTJUi. Sarah Lockwood applicant. Mr Harper appeared in support of the application, and stated that tho applicant was still unable to appear on account oi illness. Edward Smith, painter, stated that he had lived iu the neighbourhood of the hotel for sixteen years, and considered it was required in the neighbourhood. The nearest hotel on the town side was about three-quarters of a mile distant. Thera was no hotel on the other side nearer than Governor’s Bay. Ho considered the value of the property to be about .£3OOO. Ihe house was frequented by people coming over from Governor's Bay, the brickfields, and Cashmere district. To the Chairman : Had been a publican, butl was not a personal frieuu of the applicant. Three persons, named Franson, Goodfellow and Butterfield, wore called, but did not appear. Richard Norman Newby corroborated Mr Smith’s evidence, and stated that be had lived opposite to the hotel lor a year and a half, and had not seen any disturbance there during that time. '■To,the Chairman: Lived opposite to the hotel two years ago. Had been an hotelkeeper. Frederick Johnston, blacksmith, living about one hundred yards from the bandridge Hotel, stated that it was a very well, conducted place and convenient. All the roads from the Port Hills converged, near it.

To the Chairman : Had reason tosupposo, from what he saw, that the hotel was doing a good business. B, R. Muffott, carpenter, deposed that bo had lived iu King street, Sandridge, for six years, and considered the hotel was required for the residents in the district, and for people travelling from the bays, some of whom stayed there. To the Chairman: During the summer time there was a very considerable traffic to the bays past the hotel, and he thought some of the people passing called there. Ho was not a spy, and did not watch who wont in. (Hear, hear.) The Chairman said that if there were any further comments of that nature on the evidence he would have the room cleared. Mr Harper addressed the Committee in support of the application. He submitted that any other tribunal, sitting in a judicial capacity as the Committee was, would be satisfied, on the weight of evidence, to grant this license. The reason given by the Committee why it proposed to refuse the license was that it was nob required iu the neighbourhood. The evidence showed, however, that the house was a convenience not only to residents, but to travellers, and was well built and conducted. On the other hand, there was only tho evidence of Mr Gay gill and Mr Wilis. As the Committee had said it would sink its own opinions on the matter, be would ask it to earnestly and impartially consider tho evidence. The Chairman said that the Committee would reserve its decision till it had heard all the applications. WALTHAM AEMS HOTEL. Joseph Dicks, applicant. Mr Hoban appeared in , support of the application. * The Chairman said that as it was proposed to' call evidence, it would, perhaps, bo more convenh-ut to telco the evidence against the application first. Mr Hoban submitted that no evidence could be called against the application. The adjournment which'he had obtained at the previous meeting was under Section 63 of the Act, solely for the purpose of enabling the applicant to reply to the objection that the house was not required. If further evidence ware called against him ho would probably require another adjournment. The Chairman said that the Committee wished to call evidence in order to show' the reasons for its action. Mr Hoban submitted that the Committee could not call evidence in that way. It bad said that it had formed the opinion that the house whs nor. required “ of its own motion.” had been no evidence against the application. The Chairman said that there had been a petition. Mr Hoban said that it had given no reasons, ami was unsupported by evidence. Mr Fisher asked if, as the matter was one in which they were all interested, the Committee would ben- other counsel on it. The Chairman replied iu the affirmative. Messrs Fisher and Stringer then addressed the Committee, submitting that the adjourned meeting was for the purpose of enabling the applicants to bring evidence in order to endeavour to shake the opinion formed by the Committee of its own motion. The Chairman said chat be thought that Section G 5 showed that the Committee had the right to call evidence under the present circumstances. Mr Harper submitted that the words “of its own motion” showed that the Committee was acting on its own opinions, formed on its own knowledge, having satisfied itself by inspection or enquiry, as it was entitled to do. Mr Weston, who appeared for Mrs Greer, proprietor of the Sydenham Hotel, submitted that the applicant had a prima facia right to a renewal unless it was proved that tho hotels were not required, and the adjournment was specifically for the purpose of enabling the applicants to combat the objections raised at tbo first meeting. It would be manifestly unfair to compel the applicant to meet fresh objections. The Chairman said that tho Committee would adjourn for a few minutes to consider the matter. On resuming, the Chairman said that tho Committee accepted the contention of counsel. Mr Hoban addressed the Committee on behalf or the application of Mr Dicks. He called Thomas Grainey, who deposed that he had lived about two chains from the hotel for eleven years, and considered it was wanted there. Very seldom went there himself, but sometimes had to send there for liquor for medicinal purposes. He was a freeholder and a ratepayer, and had not .vaen anything wrong there. The hotel was need a good deal by people passing along tho road. To the Chairman: The trade done was cbvefly among the residents, but there was a g.ood deal of traffic past the hotel. Cornelius Cuff, surveyor, had sealed off on the map the distance of tho Waltham Arms from other hotels. It was 72 chains by road from the Lancaster Park Hotel, 60 chains from tike Club Hotel, 59 chains from the Grosvenor Hotel in Christchurch. From the Lancaster Park Hotel to the Club Hotel was a little over a mile. There was a large population around the Waltham Arms Hotel, and he would say it was necessary.

John Whitelaw: Had lived within 20 chains of the hotel for 23 years, and in his opinion it was' necessary 'in the locality. The population had increased very largely since he first went there. There were over three hundred houses wfithiu the bounds of Sydenham to ■■■which the Waltham Arms was tho nearest hotel, i Had used the hotel himself. If the Sandridge Hotel were

closed there would be four hundred houses to which the Waltham Arms would be the nearest hotel. To the Chairman: Thought that his people had used the hotel within the last twelve months. Tho people In the neighbourhood were not given to excessive drinking. Did not know Mr Dicks personally. William Langdown, Charles Selby Howell, James*Nancarrow, H. B. Kirk, Taos. Francis Kylie, A. Green, James Crowley, William Angus, Samuel Greenslade, B. hi Breton, John Cotton, and George Partridge gave corroborative evidence.

Mr Hoban said Mr Dicks had several more witnesses to call to testify to the necessity ior the house in the district, butt they had been unable to remain waiting so long. Personally he bad known the requirements of the district, but he did not wish to be sworn or to give evidence. He hud a petition to present, signed by 214 persona, all bond fide residents in the district. Of these the collector could sweat to. having witnessed one hundred and fifty of the signatures, and tho balance Mr Dicks had seen written. He puttho petition in as e vidcnce. As for Mr D icks being the owner of the hotel, he submitted office copies of the deed, which sold the property to him. and for which he had paid in cash JS7SO. Altogether with additional furniture, alterations, and improvements that ho had made, the hotel had coat him .£ll7O, therefore there could be no objection to his application on the ground of bogus ownership, Mr Hoban then reviewed at length the evidence of the witnesses in favour of, the application. Mr Hoban asked if the Committee desired any testimony as. to the character of tho applicant. , ~ The Chairman: No, we have no objection on that score. This case will be adjourned bill tho rest of the applications ate dealt with. KINGSTON.HOT3L. Eliza Meek Battley, applicant. Mr Harper appeared for the applicant, and said that he purposed calling a number of witnesses. Re called W. Cooper, formerly landlord of tho Culverden Hotel, wno said ho had stayed in the hotel several times. Mrs Cooper and his' daughters had stayed there also. .He . spoke highly o: the accommodation at the. hotel, and said that 'Mrs Batley had conducted it, to his fancy, about as well as it could be. He had seen her/refuse a small child beer when sent for it. As a hotelkeeper himself, he should consider the house was excellently conducted ; it was also greatly used by persons going up country. G. Chinnery, fiax-mill proprietor at EaiigiorA and "Woodend,' gave similar evidence. To the Chairman: He had no special reason for stopping there. Ho was certainly brother-in-law to the applicant, but that did nob influence him in giving hia evidence. W. Martin, carter forLangdowaand Co., W. Langdown, W. Main, blacksmith, and Burnside also gave evidence. Mr Harper addressed the Committee. The decision was reserved until the Committee gave its decision in.the other cases. * CROWN HOTEL. William James, applicant. Mr Harper, who appeared for' the applicant, said the license of the Crown Hotel was granted in 18Gt>, two years previous to the Waltham Arms, The licence had been renewed from year to year. He called Mrs M'Dowall, who said she had lived almost opposite the hotel ever siuce it was built. She had never been inconvenienced by it. She held a good deal of freehold property in the neighbourhood, and she found that there was a general need for the hotel. She did nob drink herself, but had frequently occasion to send people to the hotel to stay. Messrs Aiken, grocer on the South belt; Chinnery, livery stable - beeper; Ward, miller; Little, carpenter; H. Paddy, and T. Goodchild, Mrs Cooknell and Dr Patrick gave corroborative evidence. The Committee deferred the consideration of this application till the other cases had been dealt with. SOUTHERN CROSS HOTEL. John Hare Taylor, applicant. Mr Fisher appeared for the applicant, and pointed oat that the license of .this hotel ,had been granted for nine years, and that the population in the district had greatly increased during that time. The house was' a very good one, having been constructed of brick and stone, at great expense. Having explained- the conditions under which the applicant held the lease of the hotel from Mr P. Burke, who had built it, Mr Fisher referred to the petitions which had been presented at a former meeting, submitting that there was a great preponderance of evidence In support of the application. The words “required in the neighbourhood,” he contended, showed that the Legislature bad provided for licensing houses where circumstances arose which required them, so that whether the persons residing in the neighbourhood needed the hotel or not, if circumstances required it m that neighbourhood the Committee must consider those circumstances, lie called : Limes Little, a sheep termer resident at Waikari, who raid that be frequently attended the sales at the Addington yards, and the agricultural shows and ram fairs. At show and fair times he had to write beforehand to secure beds for himself and hia men. Many of tho judges and stockowners slopped at the Southern Cross. He bad met several Southland farmers there at different times, and b# considered the hotel was needed by the outside public. Mr T. E. Taylor desired to cross-examine the witnesses.

Mr Fisher objected, on the ground that the objectors’ case bad closed. He had to answer tbe Committee’s decision, the Committee having ot its own motion decided adversely to the application. The Chairman ■ pointed out that Mt Taylor’s position was still the same. Mr Taylor only wished to test tbo reliability o£ the additional evidence brought forward by Mr Fisher. The Committee having consulted, decided that Mr Taylor had no right to cross-examine the witnesses.

la answer to tbe Chairman, Mr Little said that at show time he should not be surprised if six hotels would do a good business. He did not think that the Star Hotel would provide sufficient accommodation for the ordinary weekly traffic to the market. He would not care to go and stop at a. hoarding-house. The accommodation was not as good as at the hotels. Hr Fisher pointed out that even Sir Eobert Stout took care to stop at licensed houses.

Mr William Henderson, Chairman of the Canterbury Saleyards Company, oaid ha had lived on the Lincoln road for eighteen years. The accommodation .at the Star Hotel was not sufficient for those having business at the market. li. Aherne, K. Prankish, James Cowie, Peter Elder, J. C. Sopp, C. H. Winney, J. Munninjrs, Milner, M. Lewin, Alfrey, W. M'Kenzie, K. Leathern, J. Thomas, James Stark, N. K. Bowden, William Pickering, O'Callaghan, H. M'Keown and John Hepworth were called ; and gave evidence tending to show that the house waa required in the neighbourhood. Eaph testified that the Star Hotel could not provide all the necessary accommodation for the persons in the vicinity, and for those travelling with stock to the market and show grounds. At 5.15 p.m. Mr Fisher said he had several more witnesses to call, and asked if the Committee would adjourn.

The Committee consulted, and subsequently, at Mr Weston's request, adjourned till 3 p.m. to-day.