LICENSING COMMITTEE.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLV, Issue 57, 8 March 1911, Page 2

LICENSING COMMITTEE.

QUARTERLY MEETING

The quarterly meeting of the Wairau Licensing Committee was held in the Blenheim Courthouse at noon today, and was attended by the following members:—Messrs R. S. Florance, S.M., (chairman), H. Jellyman, G. Maitland, G. T. Corbett, J. McIvinley, and W. Ching. TRANSFERS. The following transfers were granted:— Starborough Hotel, Seddon: William Butler to William Archibald Fuller. Post Office Hotel. Picton: Thomas Green to Ernest John Joseph Cheesman. Commercial Hotel, Havelock: Benjamin Crisp to James Mclntosh Fraser. Okaramia Hotel: Hugh Blacknell McGuire to Joseph Wooster. AN OBJECTION. When the application of Frederick Oscar Linstrom to transfer his license of the Commercial Hotel, Blenheim, to George Edwards came on, an objection from the police was read. It stated that the hotel was very badly conducted, and that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to have charge of an hotel. Mr Churchward appeared for the applicant, and said that this objection was against the granting of the license. He asked on what "round's the Sergeant of Police said the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a license. > . .

The Chairman said that there were several charges in the police report which would have to be substantiated.

Henry Steere (police constable) said that on the night of the 21st December last he went to the Commercial Hotel in company with Sergt. Hansen, and found?some men under the influence of liquor. Subsequently lie received a eoniplaint that a man v.-as drunk in Dodson Street, and was imntr obscene language. Up arrested him on a charge of drunkenness. To had had many complaints that *7ninkenness was permitted on t"h« premises. Prohibited persons had

been seen about the premises. He frequently passed the hotel when on duty, and had seen drunken men and also prohibited persons .about the premises. Many complaints had been made that the house was not conductasked if. the Sergeant proposed to call evidence to prove this latter statement. The Sergeant replied that he did

Mr Churchward objected.tothe evidence being admitted, saing that it was decidedly unfair to allow these statements to be made. +i I : TI \, The witness said he did not think the applicant a fit and proper person to have charge of the hotel, because , he.did not'look:.fter the premises properly. „. ~ , To Mr Churchward: The applicant told Sergt. Hansen on. the evening he was cautioned about permitting, drunkenness that the men did not get, the drink on the premises. He had never seen any prohibited persons on the premises, but had seen them close To' Mr Ching: As a general rule, if a man was not tirunk enough to be arrested the police drove him, out or the town. These men did not always 'go in the direction of the Commercial Hotel. They often went in that direction. He would not say tha,t the men ho had seen there had obtained liquor from the applicant's premises. To Mr Jellyman: He would not swear that the" applicant -had been seen under the influence, of liquor. Joseph Lamb (police constable) said 'that since the' applicant had taken over the hotel he had been, there frequently, and on each occasion he had •seen a number of undesirable men in the vicinity .'.dfVthfai premises, and had drawn the applicant's attention to them. Th© applicant had said he knew ? nbthmg about them. There had been ai number of prohibited men about therey too. On one oocasioja « when he was there, he had seen men in jthe. bar, under the influence of Ikjuor. ~ Mr Churchward submitted that the '■'last statement sEouI3 not be taken until the appeal in the recent Magistrate's Court's case decision had been disposed of. • The Chairman said it was not for this tribunal to consider any court case, but to hear the evidence adduced in support of the objection raised by the police.

Mr Cbrbett" said that unless there was very strong evidence adduced by the other side he would make a- proposition which would not be favorable to the applicant. Continuing, the witness said that he had seen the applicant considerably under the influence of liquor. He had drawn the applicant's attention to the condition of men-on the'premises.

To Mr Maitland: He thought.that prohibited persons would take advantage of the fact that Mr Edwards was a stranger, and procure liquor from him.

To Mr McKinley: He knew that Dodson's Brewery was Avithin a stone's, throw of the hotel, but lie did not think men would procure liquor from the brewery and then go and stand in front of the hotel.

To Mr Churohwood: He had seen no drunkenness in the hotel with the exception of the occasion when the applicant appeared before the Court for a breach of'the Licensing Act. He'had not moved on vagrants who were loitering about the hotel unless he received complaints. He always moved on vagrants when he saw them. He warned them first. He had spoken to one or two vagrants near this hotel. He had noticed nothing to speak of since the Christmas and New Year period. Denis Bryne and John Bird (police constables) corroborated the evidence given by the previous witnesses, the latter saying that the hotel had been conducted exceptionally well since the Christmas holidays. Geoi-ge Edwards (the applicant) said he had never been under the influence of liquor since he took over the hotel, nor had he to his knowledge served prohibited persons. He had not served people under the influence of drink. He had been cautioned on December 30th and January sth. „ He, had a man work-

ing for, him^ about a fortnight, but when he found out what he was he got rid of him. There were always a lot of loafers knocking about in the vicinity of the hotel. They went in that direction when they Were driven out of town.

' To the Sergeant: The previous licensee reconimehcted the man he had working for him. Mr Linstrom had not told him not to have this man about the premises. He had made complaints to Constable Bryne and Constable Lamb about the loafers. There were still some prohibited persons to be seen in the vicinity of the hotel. They lived near by- If a man had one drink he would be under the influence of liquor. A man named Ford was under the influence of liquor on January 5, and was arrested in the evening. He had not had a drink on the premises since four o'clock in the afternoon.

To Mr Jellyman: A man named Satherley stayed at the hotel for a month. He did not remember Satherley going away and being very drunk, nor did he remember serving him with some bottles of beer when he was drunk.

Mr Oorbett moved that the granting of this transfer be adjourned for two months to allotf. the owners of the hotel to find a new proprietor: the committee being of the opinion that the applicant did not appear to conduct.the place in a prcper manner. -■■

Mr Jellyman seconded the motion. Mr Cliii^g did no,t agree with the motion. He remembered other h^telfeeeperswho had be'eri "had up"-; Sot* permitting drunkenness on ; their .premises, and they had been caution%A. 'He thought that this hotel had boeii properly conducted since Mr Edwards had paid the penalty. He thought it,unfair to make fish of one and flesh of another, and he' moved that the transfer be granted, and that Mr Edwards be cautioned that if there were any further complaints ■lie would lose his license altogether; that was provided the committee wer© satisfied that the house had riot, been properly conducted. Mr McKinley seconded the amendment.

Mr Jellyman said that this was one of the mqst serious cases the committee had. ever had before it. Be congratulated the police upon the way in which they had produced their evidence. He was opposed to the amendment, and he thought that the committee would riot be doing its duty to tlie electors if it carried tho-' amendment. He would ceritaiiij^i4oppose it. ' The.' amendment was defeated, and the motion carried.

The i meeting' theiriv t^miriated