WAIRAU LICENSING COMMITTEE.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLIII, Issue 144, 16 June 1909, Page 2

WAIRAU LICENSING COMMITTEE.

The adjourned meeting of the Wai- j i-au Licensing Bench was held in the . Courthouse yesterday afternoon, when j there were present: His Worship,.Mr | T. Scott-Smith. S.M. (Chairman), and Messrs Maitland, Shaw, Jellyman, Ching and McKinley. TERMINUS HOTEL, PICTON. The adjourned application for a renewal of the license to the Terminus Hotel, Picton, was called. Mr Churchward appeared for the licensee, and Mr Conolly for the OWm T Churchward said if there were any objections he would answer them If the evidence already given was all the evidence, he was ready to call his eVstrgetnt-Major Mason said he had visited the hotel on Saturday, with the Chairman and another member or the Committee. The south wing 'was of brick. The third floor was unfinished. On the ground floor was contained a large room unfinished. As regards the old building, nothing had Tbeen done since last quarterly meeting, and the wishes of the Committee had not been carried out. _ Building operations had been suspended. To Mr Churchward: There was a public bar in the old building. Technically the south wing and the old building fulfilled the requirements ot the Act as regards the number ot the rooms. The old building also was up to the requirements of the Act in this respect. In the west wing there were four bedrooms and a large spare room. Taking the brick and wooden portion the building fulfilled the requirements of the Act. Taking the house as a whole he would say that the house was not in a condition to have a license granted. The witness then described the rooms in detail. Some of the rooms wanted distempering, and the outside wanted plastering. This portidir was practically new, but very little difference had been made m the interior of the kitchen and washhouse. There was no sense in dismantling the outer wings of the old building and leaving the centre standing. He could not say that the wormeaten part was dangerous to the public. He would not be afraid of sleeping there. ... The Chairman: You know very well, Mr Churchward, that the building was condemned three years ago. Mr Churchward said that it the owners did not see fit to build to the Committee's requirements his client (the licensee) should not suffer. The Chairman said that the licensee Bad his remedy. . Mr Churchward said -that the licensee would have to comply with the Committee's requirements or give up Ms lease. If the building came within the four corners of the Act the application should be granted. The witness continued. It it were a private house it might last for ■years. In his opinion the building ot the new portions had been done ma silly sort of way. As regards the old portion, he would put it this way: •You could not say that an old coat was out of repair ; although you.would not wear it. He did not think it worth while to patch the balcony. The house was held together by' the balcony to a large extent, lhe build- j ings were incongruous m the extreme, and he would object to it on thtfb score alone. The old building was old, worm-eaten, and rapidly roing into decay. He would not go so far as to say it was ruinous'and Churchward asked his Worship; to take a note of what the witnessSaMr Conolly also asked that the Chairman take notes. . The Chairman asked what right Mi Conolly had to ask the Magistrate to take notes of evidence. Mr Conolly: I don't know who should ask you if I ao not, sir. The Chairman: You will please sit down. It is a piece of gross impertinence on your part to ask me to take notes. It is nothing to do with you whether I do so or not, and if you do not sit clown I will not allow you to appear at this table. The witness continued. A large liotel when ordered to be re-built should be an ornament to the borough. The house was a different class of house to others in the borough. It was clean and well conducted. The wings of the old build-' ing were really better than the centre, and he did not see why the wings should be demolished and the centre left. The Committee ordered a new building, and the orders had not been carried out. The house was not up to the required standard, as ordered by the Committee. To Mr Conolly: He knew the Act, and also Section 76. If the owner had pulled down the old house and "built a house of wood with the required number of rooms the Committee nad power to refuse a license, under Section 103. Mr Conolly said Section 103 only referred to Section 109. The Chairman said Mr Conolly had no right to put questions to the witness as to his opinions on the Licensing Act. Witness: As far as he saw the plans of the building were very satisfactory. He remembered some few years ago some improvements being ordered. These improvements were carried out. The danger from this wormeaten building was from fire. Mr Conolly: Worm-eaten buildings Won't burn. There was a proof of that in his own office.

"Witness: He would not like to say that there were other houses in Marlborough which had received licenses which were in a worse state than the Terminus Hotel. He thought it a waste of money to attempt to repair the old part. He had no objection to the license being renewed, except that the requirements of the Committee had not been complied with. He thought a reasonable time to complete the re-building would be two years. If the owner went into the box and said he would complete the building within two years he would have no objection to the renewal. .In answer to the Committee, Mr McCarthy (the owner) said the plan produced was a new one. It had only been drawn out 14 months ago. Gordon Maitland said he had inspected the building on.the Saturday with Sergeant-Major Mason and the Chairman. The new portions were very good, except the kitchen, which should hare been lined throughout. Adjoining the kitchen, the wash-house stood, -with a copper boiler set in. When the boiler was lit the fumes would go into tlie kitchen. The rooms ■were .small and hardly fitted for the use of tenants of the house. They were occupied l>y men! In the west wing there was a large room, winch was not completed. It was not connected in any way witi.l the old building. There was a space between of 30 or lg feet. Over this wing there

were four bedrooms, nicely furnished and nicely kept. Coming to the old portion of the building, witness said that the landing wanted re-papermg, as" did most of the bedrooms. The balcony was in very poor repair in some places, but most of the structure was in very good repair. lhe licensee had conducted his house on splendid lines. - To the Chairman: He would not consider the house to be in proper repair at the present time, but in his opinion it could be put in proper repair. This would keep the building going for two or three years. At the present time the house was not a beauty spot to Picton. He would not say that the house was m a dilapidated or ruinous condition. Mr Conolly: If Mr McCarthy completed the building within two years would it suit him as a member oi the Committee. . , Witness: It might suit him, but he was only one. . James Johnston remembered inspecting the house about three years ago, and read his report of that inspection, in which mention was made of worm-eaten wood. A good many other defects were mentioned in the report, which concluded with the ooinion that the building was out of repair and required re-building. Since this report he had frequently inspected the" building. Several improvements had been effected. Some floor--1 ing had been put in, and the sashes re-hung. He could say that the place was not insanitary. The building was certainly fit to live in fronl a health point of view. The new kitchen would be more healthy limewashed than lined with wood. To Mr Churchward: The mam objections have been removed. The new rooms for^the servants were the average size for single beds. To the Committee: The wood-work was worm-bored. The place was old, but he would not say dilapidated, lhe majority of the old houses had the worm, 'it was injurious to health if the worm was in it to any great extent. The old place had already been condemned, and only a very few improvements had been effected. One or two of the objections had been remedied. The old portion was not now injurious to health, but might become so. He would still condemn the old wooden building. . To Mr Jellyman: The new kitchen was not plastered, and the rough bricks would be likely to hold dirt. If it were not lined, it should be plastered to give a smooth surface before being lime-washed. To "Mr Conolly: Me had not accurately examined the old building lately. He had confined his attention mainly to the new portions. There were a number of houses in Blenheim -with the dry-rot.

William Watson, the licensee, gave evidence as to" the accommodation at the Terminus Hotel. In his opinion the place was not out of repair, and the worm was not sufficiently present to make the wood rotten. No portion was in a dilapidated state. The building was in a sanitary state. Some slight bits of papering wanted looking to. To Mr McKinley: He had no previI ous experience of worm-eaten wood. The place was not ruinous. If anyone could put his fist through a i board he would say that it was rotTo Mr Conolly: He did a fair trade, and had received no complaints about the state of the hotel. It was rather the other way about. George Alexander Smith, residing at Picton^ knew the Terminus Hotel. There were some parts of it that required repairing. Generally it was not out of repair. The timber on the I back wall was rotten, and was wormeaten. It was not worm-eaten to the extent of being dangerous to tho public. It was a fit building for th« purpose of carrying on hotel-keeping. He had heard a part of the evidence of the licensee relative to the number of rooms apart from those used by the family. There were six bedrooms in the new portion of the house, and five^in the old part. Mr" Jeliyman said the Committee was satisfied on that point. To Mr Conolly: The whole house was re-papered three years ago. He had seen the house lately, and in some places the paper had been cut, which was the only way to bring it together. Mr McCarthy, the owner of the hotel, had spent £2500 on the hotel 2| years ago. He had during the past few years received from Mr McCarthy £2500 for improvements and. additions. He thought there was no doubt that the old part of the buliding wanted rebuilding. It was, however, good enough to be granted a license in its present state. To the Chairman: He saw the building yesterday, and would consider it \vas in repair. He had seen the verandah, which was not in repair. The Chairman: Well, then, tho house is not in repair. Witness: It is generally in repair. To Mr Ching: The timber taken

from the part newly built was as good as that in the old part remaining. It was used for building sheds. To Mr McKinley: He thought that the house was in repair. To Mr Churchward : The house was in a substantial state of repair, and in a sanitary condition. To Mr Conolly; He thought a good lime-washed brick wall was good. To Mr Ching: He would nob say that a brick Avail was as good as a plaster wall. To Mr Maitland: The brick wall would only require white-washing once a year. Joseph Dawson said the plan produced was prepared by him. A good deal of the plan had been completed. It was intended to complete the building in a year and nine months, which was ample time. He went through the old building, and he would not say that it was in an unfit condition. To the Chairman: The central portion was in good. repair; it wanted one or two alterations. Generally speaking it was not substantially out of repair. The premises were substantially in a good state of repair. He was an architect, and could speak with knowledge. Thomas George McCarthy said ho was the owner of the Terminus Hotel. The rent was £4 per week. He was ordered three years ago to do repairs, and he had spent a considerable sum in repairs, and had also spent £240 in papering, painting aad renovating the place inside and outside. Mr Dawson was his architect, and drew out the plan produced. It was his intention to go on with the rebuilding, as if he did not the money already spent would be thrown away. He had to, require to get permission to go on the ground from the licensee. He" had one license, upon which he built one wing. He had now to get authority to go on the ground and pull down the old building. The plans were all ready. He had asked such permission, but so far had not obtained it from his lessees. There was a question of interest between 1 himself and his lessees. The lessees were bound to keep the house in a condition of repair under the lease. The premises had already cost him over £5000, and would cost him £4500 more before it was completed. If lie got the permission from the lessees he wonld undertake to pull down the old portion and have die building re-erected within two years. Mr Dwan, the sub-lessee, addressed the Bench. He pointed out that if the old building were pulled down it would tend to drive away the trade. It was unfair to himself and Mr Watson. It was unjust to ask that the .building be put up now. Mr McCarthy had no right to come on to their property and pull the house down and ruin the trade. In his opinion it was unjust. They should adjourn the matter for two years, until the lease was up. Mr Churchward then addressed +he Committee, followed by Mr Conolly, who, suggested that the matter be loft to Mr Maitland and Mr George Smith, and any other gentleman that j the Committee would like to suggest; | and his client would undertake to make any necessary small repairs in the meantime which were required. It would be unfair to forfeit the license.

The Committee then retired to consider the decision, and on returning into Court the Chairman announced that the license would be renewed, subject to certain repairs being effected. WAIRAU VALLEY HOTEL. John Addison applied-fora license for the accommodation house at Wairau Valley. Mr Conolly appeared for Mr Addison, the applicant, Mr Rogers for the previous licensee, and Mr McNab for Mr Bell, the objector to the license being issued to the previous licensee. Mr Conolly said that a renewal had been refused to Mr McCarthy, the licensee, and an application had been lodged on behalf of Mr Addison for a new license in his name. They j would make terms with Mr McCarthy after the license was granted, if! granted. There was an application for a transfer from McCarthy, but Mr Addison's application had been in first. Mr McCarthy had received an offer prior to the hearing of.the. case, but he had refused that offer, and if the present application were granted it was for Mr Addison to dictate terms to Mr McCarthy. Mr McNab said that the only application before the Bench was that of Mr Addison, which was supported by his clients, Messrs Bell and Watts. Mr Bell's objection had not been finally disposed of. He believed that there was some application from Mr Watts. He proposed to put the licensee into the box and ask him if he ever conducted a hotel at Manaia. Mr Conolly pointed out that Mr Addison's application was the only one before the' Court, and he would ask them to grant it. Mr Rogers said that he had pleaded guilty on the understanding that the license should not be endorsed. Mr Addison had received his money from Cress, and now he wanted to be paid, twice over for it. Mr McCarthy had a certain stake in the case. He would ask that the application be heard of Mr Thomas. Hjs application was signed by the Mayor of Wellington and Inspector Ellison. He would ask the Committee to hear Mr Thomas as to his position in the matter. Joseph Thomas, of Wellington, who was the proposed transferee, said that if the transfer were granted he would undertake that in three days everyone connected with the house would leave. McCarthy was not financing him. His father-in-law was financing him. He would be putting in £300. About £100 of his own money would be in it. His father-in-law Avould supply practically the whole of the money,.and the Marlborough Brewery the balance. He had had no previous experience in hotel-keeping. He had suggested to Mr McCarthy that he should take the hotel. Mr McCarthy had suggested it to him oefore -the Licensing Committee met, but he had not decided then. MrMcCarthy had not mentioned any offer made by Mr Conolly. He had not gone into details. To Mr McNab: He knew a lady named Wallstein. She was his

cousin. She was not his wife. She was a widow.

Mr Rogers: I don't know what this is all about; it seems rather insulting. Mr McNab: Mr Rogers does not know so much about the thing as Mr Conolly and I. Witness: He knew Nichol. He knew nothing about any pre-arrange-ment about Mr McCarthy wanting Mrs Wallstein to go into the house. The Chairman: How do you appear, Mr McNab? Mr McNab: I appear for Mr Beil. Mr Rogers: Mr Bell was the objector to the previous application. Mr McNab said that the application had not been refused, and he had established his locus standi. To Mr Rogers: The place had been a little better conducted since the conviction. If he took the house it was understood that the present holders would not stay any longer in the house. To Mr Conolly : Although the house had been conducted better since the conviction, still there was room for improvement. Mr McNab said he would like to call Mr McCarthy. Mr Ching said that they were wasting time. Mr Bell was not objecting to the application. Sergt.-Major Mason went into the box in support of Mr and Mrs Addison's application. Personally he had no objection to Mr Thomas. Counsel addressed the Bench, and the Committee retired. . On returning to Court the Chairman announced that the application of Mr Addison was granted. Mr Conolly asked that Mr Addison be appointed agent to carry on immediately. The Sergt.-Major said he had received a telephone message from Wairau Valley that afternoon that heavy drinking was being carried on there at the present time. Mr Mills said that a renewal was refused for the renewal of the license to Mr McCarthy. The Committee had no power now to forfeit the present license. The Committee had already dealt with the matter, and there had been no forfeiture. The only question which had been adjudged was the refusal or not of the license. No order was made m respect or immediate entry.

A Press Association telegram from Wellington states that yesterday the Governor went aboard the Amokura to present his gold medal to the boy George Woods, who for good work and exemplary conduct during the past twelve months was recommended for the honor by the whole of the ship. Lord Plunket stated that since the inception of the Amokura 91 boys had been enrolled, of whom 43 had been discharged, 34 had followed the sea, and three had gone into the Royal Navy. The lack of school work on I the boat was pointed out by his Excellency, who advised, the training of boys on lines obtaining in England— a college on shore and a ship for practical work. He congratulated the officers and the boys on the work done, and hoped that the boys would always remomber that they were pioneers of the Navy and mercantile marine of the Dominion. Blair Cullen, the run-ner-up for Lord Plunket's prize, also received a medal promised by Lady Plunket. !