ANNUAL LICENSING MEETINGS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7658, 8 June 1886, Page 6

ANNUAL LICENSING MEETINGS.

AUCKLAND CITY NORTH. The annual licensing meeting of the Auckland North Committee was held at the Resident Magistrate's Court, High-street, yesterday. There were present: Mr. F. G. Ewington (chairman), Messrs. G. Wins tone, G. W. Owen, H. F. Anderson, and Robert Neal. Mr. Superintendent Thomson represented the police, and Mr. T. Cotter appeared for the Auckland Trade Protection Society. Transfers.— Transfers were granted for the City Hotel, from Albert Gabolinsky to Alfred J, Tapper ; of the Albert Hotel, from Dorothy C. O'Meagher to G. B. Howard ; and of the Shakespeare Hotel, from Donald Urquhart to W. J. McCabe. In regard to the Albert Hotel, the chairman said they approved of the improvements in the hotel, but when the question of renewal came on, they would require that fire-escapes should be provided. Mr. Cotter said they would be provided to the satisfaction of the police. The transfer of the license of the Shamrock Hotel, from Mrs. O'Sallivan to Donald Urquhart, was also granted. RENEWALS.

Nevada Hotel, Qdeen-stukrt : Th Private Bar Discussion.—John Barret applied for a renewal of his license for thi hotel. The police report was favourable and Mr. Cotter appeared for the applicant He said there were two objections, of whicl notice had been given by the chairman : First that the conditions on which the license wa granted had not been fulfilled ; and. second that the house wag not required. It wouli be in the recollection of the Bench that t the Nevada, Victoria, and Thistle Hotel notices had been given in regard to the quea tion of private bars, and at the last meetin a discussion took place re the positio of hotels having rooms in which counter were erected. Then he (Mr. Cotter) sub mittcd that it was a great difficulty the; were labouring under, seeing that in othe districts the committees did not insist oi this committee's definition of what was i bar, and after discussion it was suggested b] him <Mr. Cotter) and agreed to by tho com mittee, that test cases should be taken t< determine whether these people had infringec the Act. It was then agreed, and ho had thi report before him, that these cases shouk be tested, but the police did not take proceedings immediately, but subsequent!} they did at the instigation of the com mittee. When he (Mr. Cotter) was informec of this, he placed every facility in the wa) of the police, and on his suggestion the Resident Magistrate, Mr. Smith, went ronnt and saw the hotels, not as specially prepared, but as they ordinarily appeared. The Resident Magistrate took all these matteri into consideration. Mr. Luks on that sion urged that the question should be settled, as he was about to proceed tc England. The decision of the K.M. was that they were not committing a breach of the .Act. He (Mr. Cotter) then stated to the Magistrate that at the desire of the committee, he drew his attention to the condition on the back of the license, and he ruled that they had not broken this condition. The chairman said this was not one of the questions submitted to the Magistrate, and this was the first he heard of it. Mr. Cotter said that it was at the chairman's own suggestion he had brought the condition, and he held that the condition was not broken. The chairman said the K.M. had no power to deal with the condition, although the Supreme Court might do so. Mr. Cotter argued that what he and others understood was that the decision of the R. M. was to be taken, unless either party chose to appeal, and. after the Magistrate's decision in , their favour, his clients oould not appeal. The chairman said that if they intended to submit an important case for their guidance, they would not have allowed two lawyers to appear against the sergeant of police. Mr. Cotter explained that there were not two lawyers. He himself bad referred to a case which had been decided in Christohurcb, but which was not reported, and Mr. O'Meagher, who was present, fend had been engaged in that case, merely confirmed what he said was the result, but took no part in the discussion. With the facts that the Alliance or others wore not then represented by counsel, he (Mr. Cotter) had nothing to do. Tho police brought the case, and the R.M.'s attention was called to the conditions not only by himself but by Sergeant Pratt. He (Mr. Cotter) understood it was considered that the R.M.'s decision should be binding on them, and on the Bench as coming from a person who had a judicial position. The chairman said he then stated that whatever the position of the R.M. was, it could not affect the dispute between the committee and the pub' licans. Mr. Cotter said he did not understand it so, and considered the logical inference was that it would be binding on both. The chairman said that the only question submitted to the Magistrate was sis to the definition of what was a bar. After some further discussion, the chairman read, the following manifesto :—

As three very important decisions respecting the Nevada, Thistle, and Victoria Hotels will be given by us at this annual meeting, the committee have asked me, as chairman, to make a publio statement of the principle upon which thtiy will deal with extra bar*. We have taken objection under the 81st section of the Licensing Act, to the renewal of the licenses for these hotels on two grounds :—First, because the conditions upon which the licenses were granted were not carried out in a satisfactory manner ; and second, because the licensing thereof is not required in the neighbourhood. This has not been done hastily or to oppress those interested in the businesses and properties, but after many careful deliberations and in defence of the general public. Ever since we have been in office, we have tried to act with unswerving justice to the publicans, doing only such things as would be ratified by the Supreme Court, public opinion, and our own consciences. In this spirit we have always tempered the sevority of the law in favour of the publicans, and in several instances we interposed to save them from very serious consequences when they had ignorantly and unintentionally rendered themselves liable to forfeit their licenses. In such cases we have never been appealed to in vain, but now that we and the law are openly defied, we feel that we should be guilty of a gross breach of publio duty if wo did not enforce and uphold the law. At our last annual meeting every license was granted conditionally. The face of each license recited that "only one bar and no more " should be used ; and as there was a quibble over a mere technicality, we printed at the back of each license the following condition, to make it quite clear what we meant: — "No private or other bar for the sale of intoxicating liquors shall bo used in the within licensed premises." Twentysix out of twenty-nine publicans in our ward complied with these conditions, but tho licensees of the three hotels objected now to wilfully broke them. When the police officially informed us of tho breach of the

conditions, wo advised them to prosecute the publicans for gelling in unauthorised bars without a license, in terms of the lC4th seotion of the Licensing Act ; but the prosecution failed, because by a little ingenuity the publicans had contrived that the extra ban did cot "open immediately to any street." Mr. Cotter, on behalf of the publicans, asked as to agree that the prosecution should be a tail; case to decide whether those places were " public bars" within the meaning of the law. Wo agreed to do bo, intimating at the same time that, whatever the Resident Magistrate's decision might be, it could not settle our contention with the publicans, beoauso they had broken our conditions, which the Magistrate had no power to deal with. _ We nevor agreed to the breaking of conditions in order to test the case. The police gave evidence upon oath at our quarterly meeting that extra bars were opened, and if the licensees had been conviotod of selling without a license, we would have dealt with these cases as wo are doing now. We attached so little importance to the test case that we did not retain oounsel to argue the question with the publicans lawyers before the Magistrate, knowing that' conditions were involved whioh only the Supreme Court could receive on appeal. The committee accept with due respect tho Magistrate's decision, is showing that extra fees cannot be charged for the inner bars, although, strange to say, extra foes were charged for them for many years; and as showing that such places are not "public bars" requiring special licenses to save men from conviction. But we provided against a mere quibble, by stipulating that publicans .should not have "private or other bars," and they knew that if they could not be convictod for selling without a license, they could be dealt with by this committee for not carrying out the conditions of their lioenie. Since the decision of the Kesident Magistrate, some publicans have concluded that they may now have as many bars as they please, and that they can snap their fingers at Licensing Committees. r Under these circumstances it is necessary that we state openly what we understand the law to be which we shall enforce. If publioans claim three bars, as Mr. Leech of the Thistle does, then they can claim six, and if »i, then an uulimited number. Now it vould be ridiculous to suppose that publicans may open as many bars as they please all over their houses, provided they label them "coffeo room," as Mr. Luks of the Victoria does, and contrives in all sorts of ingenious ways, as all do, that they shall not open "immediately in any street." The whole spirit of the Licensing

Act regulates such a supposition. The Act it , for regulating the Bale of intoxicating liquors, and that invests licensing committees with the power and responsibility of regulating it. They hare no more right to suppress it unduly and indiscriminately than to lioense it unduly and indiscriminately. _ The 75tb says, imperatively, " they shall exercise their discretion in granting or refusing any license." The law makes them judges of the characters of all applicants for licenses, and requires that they shall not only know nothing bad of them, bat shall know something good of them, for it says they shall approve of them before granting a license (sections G3,68, 75, 89); they are made judges of the suitability of premises for pubuchouses (sec. 44); also of the necessity for the houses in a district (sec. 75); hence if there are bad men, or bad houses, or too few or too many publichouses, the committee are responsible, local option notwithstanding. There are many things which licensing committees have to judge of, but they are especially required that when they decide to do this or that " they shall be satisfied that it is for the benefit and convenience of the public" (sec 37); these are the very words of the Act, where it begins to invest committees with authority. But publicans, brewers, and spirit merchants think that the liquor traffic is solely for their own private benefit and convenience, and they very bitterly resent it when licensing committees make them tuva even a decent regard for the public benefit and convenience. If those people would moderate their personal bias in favour of their own limited olass, and take tho broad view which the law does of the liquor traffic, they would no more think of defying and threatening licensing committees than they think of doing so to Judges of superior Courts. Until they take broader views, publicans will continue to consider committees obnoxious for compelling them to provide meals, beds, and stables, when necessity, bociuao less profit is made out of thbse things than oat of liquor* ; but tho law thrusts upon committees the duty of securing the benefit and convenience of the travelling and general public. Having this opinion, we will not permit publicans to have so many bars and billiard-rooms about their houses, as to render those houses of no benefit; or convenience to the ceneral public. On this broad principle of public benefit and convenience, we will decide all applications for extra bars, as we did in the case of the United Service Hotel, where an extra bar was found to be necessary; and we will give preference to those publicans who cater best for the general public. If owners of hotel property will not countenance this policy and put good men into their houses, or if they extort such fabulous rents and premiums from their tenants that they are almost compelled to do or permit disreputable things to make a living, then they must not wonder if their houses are refused a license. A. mere drinking saloon could sell more liquor and make more profit than a large hotel having many public conveniences, and in regulating the sale of liquor we will try to drive mere drinkers into the best houses, in order that inferior bouses may be dispensed with, and that the profit from extra drink may make them set great value on their licenses, and conduct their business so that it may be for the benefit and convenience of the public, In tho case of the Thistle Hotel we found on inspection that two bars downstairs and a bottling department occupied nearly the whole of the lower premises ; and an immense bar and a billiard room upstairs occupied so much space that the landlord had to crowd into his own bedroom, with its double bedstead, two other bedsteads for his daughters, leaving such inadequate convenience for the public that we think that the licensing thereof would be a breach of duty under these circumstances. As regards the Nevada, the house was never intended for an hotel. It has insufficient convenience, and cannot be altered suitably for one on account of the small allotment upon which it stands. Except for this circumstance we should have felt dispoiod to give Mr. and Mrs. Barrett another trial, as we think that an honest desire to pay very great expenses tempted them to infringe their conditions. Mr. Luk»' breaking of bis conditions is such a case that the committee cannot overlook ; but we shall consider these several cases at once, as the law requires that houses objected to shall be taken after the new applications (sub-sections 5 and 6, section ii). Mr. Cotter submitted that beforo answer-

ing iuch a document he should have an opportunity to peruse it, and the chairman said he would be allowed fourteen days to consider his answer. Mr. Cotter proceeded to argue at some length that there was evidently a misapprehension, and his impression, as well as that of others in Court, was that the decision of the magistrate would be considered binding on both sides unless an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court. The chairman said in regard to the Nevada, the committee had a bona tide objection, that the house was unfit. They would not, however, decide the matter to-day, but adjourn the application for a fortnight, and if they then submitted plans, and showed that the house would be tor the public convenience, they would consider it. Mr. Cotter then asked if the question of the bars in the past should be at an end, and make a new departure. The chairman demurred, but after a consultation with the other members of the committee, he announced their decision as follows : The Bench had decided to adjourn the application for a fortnight, and if then such plans as they would approve of were submitted, they would overlook the breach of conditions in the past, and grant the license on the same terms as last. VioroniA Hotel, Victoria-street, R. F. Luks applicant.—This was adjourned for a fortnight.

•Thistle Hotel, Queen-street.— application was also adjourned for a fortuight, in order that plans oi improvements and tho name of a new tenant might be supplied. ikk Hotel, Albert-street, James drowning applicant.—Granted, subject to certain alterations to urinal. # Star Hotel, Albert-street, Adam Cairns (applicant. The police report referred to the recent improvements and additions. The chairman said that in tho conditions the}' had an alteration, using the words "other room fitted witn a bar,'' instead of private bar. Tne license was granted. Royal Mail, Victoria-Btreot, John Codling applicant.—li ranted. Foresters'. Arms, Albert-street, Simon Coombes auplicauc— chairman said there had been complaints of the conduct of the house, but as people did not come forward to support them, they should not refuse the license. Wham Hotel, Queen-street, Mary Coyle applicant.—Granted. Governor Browne, Hobson-streot, David Danuingham applicant. —Mr. Thomson stated that plans for a new first-class building, to be erected when the levels were fixed, were prepared, and it would be then at once proceeded with. Mr. Cotter corroborated this, and the license was granted. Albion, Hobson-streot, Arthur Henry Fisher applicant.—Granted. Glekson's, <■ ustom-street, Patrick Gleesou applicant.—Granted. Albert Hotel, Queen-street, George B. Howard applicant. — Granted, the committee again speaking of the great improvement in the building. British Hotel, Queen-street, Owen Humphreys applicant.—Granted. Aok»ra, Victoria-street, William Lynch, applicant.—Granted, conditionally on the fire-escapes being made what was required. CLAMtiCAkDK, ham-street, Annie Lynch applicant.—Granted. Waitbmata, Queen - street, James F. Maciutyre applicant.—Mr. Brassey, for the applicant, applied for the use of a bar in a

private room on the right-hand side of the pri vate entrance. The application for the license was granted. Mr. Thomson, in reply to the chairman, recommended the application, as without it the liceuj.ee would be placed in an unfair position as compared with the licensee of the house at the oppoaite side of the street. He considered in this case the bar was required, the house was largely used by captains and mates of ships, and in Mr. Macintyre'a hands it was conducted in the most satisfactory manner. The application was granted on payment of the extra fee, in accordance with the Act. Uobson, Hobson-street, John S. Milne applicant. —Granted. Shakespeare, Wyndham-street, William John McCabe, applicant. — Granted. Oxford, Victoria-street, William Mahoney applicant.—Granted. Eagle, Albert-street, Daniel O'Connor, applicant, — Granted, conditional on the provision of fire-escapes being erected, Oram's, Hobson-street, Hubert Oram applicant. — Report most favourable. Granted. Shamrock, Wellesley-street, Donald Urquhart applicant.—Granted. Alexandra, Chapel-street, John Pierce applicant.— Granted. Empire, Victoria-street, Patrick W. Ryan applicant. —The chairman having remarked on the fact that no application had been made for permission to conduct the business in the temporary premises while the new house was in course of erection, and Mr. Gleeson having made an explanation of the circumstances, the application was adjourned for a fortnight, in order that the committee might inspect the premises. City, Hobson-street, Alfred J. Tapper applicant.—Mr. Speed appeared for the applicant. Granted. j

Brickiatibs' Arm*, Chapel-street, Annie Zeiglcr applicant.—There was no objection, and it was granted. United Service, Queen and Wellesley streets, James Condon applicant. — The police report, at published in yesterday's issue, was highly favourable. Mr. Hesketh applied for a license on the same conditions as last year. Granted. Mr. Hesketh then applied for an extension of the time to eleven o'clock, as provided by the amended Act, and urged several arguments in support of the application. He also presented a petition in favour of the request for extension, and Mr. Thomson supported the application. The application was adjourned for fourteen days, to enable the applicant to produce evidence to show that the extension of time would be for the publio benefit. . GRAFTON. At the annual meeting of the Licensing committee held yesterday at the R.M. Court, there were present Messrs. P. A. White (chairman), E. A. Mackechnic, and Wm. Hunt. Queen's Hotel, James Hawking applicant.—There was no objection on the part of the police. Mr. Cotter appeared in support of the application. Mr. White asked what had been done with the urinal. It drained on to the footpath. If that was stopped, there would be no objection. Mr. Cotter undertook that this should he attended to, and the license was granted.

| THE THAMES DISTRICT. [ Thames, Monday. At the licensing meetings several applications were adjourned for alterations to be made. The chairman of Thames North intimated that the committee were of opinion that the number of licenses was excessive, and warned applicants that they might be reduced next year. A. M. Hawltes, of Tapu, not having applied within the specified time for the renewal of his license, was refused. There was a great fight for two licensos by Henry Laycock and Walter Birch at Tairua. The Union Sash and Door Co. opposed, but contrary to general expectation the licenses were refused, as not required. LICENSES REFUSED. Wellington, Monday. At the Cook licensing meeting to-day, the Bench intimated that licenses for the Prince of Wales, Army and Navy, and Clyde Quay Hotels would not be renewed. Adjournment in these cases were granted until the 18th, to enable licensees to produce evidence. All other licenses were renewed. The other city committees granted all the other renewals.