TRANSFER OF HOTEL LICENSES

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12654, 7 September 1904, Page 7

TRANSFER OF HOTEL LICENSES

AN OBJECTOR'S RIGHTS. An application made at yesterday's meeting of the Auckland Licensing Committee for the transfer of the Brilomart Hotel, Cus-tom-street, from Walter Dyer to William John Baker, was strenuously opposed by Mr. William Richardson on the ground that the applicant was a man of bad fame and character. Mr. Nicholson represented the applicant, who at present holds a temporary transfer. Mr. Richardson, in addressing the committee, asserted that while licensee of the Alexandra Hotel the applicant had permitted a portion of his promises to be used as a brothel for five months and a-half, and twe notorious characters who were arrested in possession of the cottage in the hotel ytfi\<3 were convicted. The ease was plaoed at the bottom of the list, and when it came before the committee in the afternoon Mr. Nicholson pointed out that the applicant had been . a licensee in the city, at Avondale, in the Bay of Islands, I and also in the Waikato, and there were nc I unfavourable polio© reports concerning the conduct of the several hotels of which he i had charge at various times. A magistrate's certificate had been granted when the applicant left the Alexandra Hotel to take charge of the house fit Avondale, and coun sel asked for tho production of this, togethei with any remarks that may have been made by the magistrate respecting the Application for the certificate. He further questionec Mr. Richardson's status under section 59 a: to him being a resident in' the neighbour hood of the Britomart Hotel. Mr. Richardson stated that he resided a Grey Lynn and had an office in Quean street. ~, , Mr. Blomfiold: How do you qualify unde: the Act? , , A . Mr. Richardson: On the ground that am a ratepayer of the city. Mr. Elomfield: Under the Act yourquali fications aro limited. Mr. Richardson said for the purposed o tho Act he was a resident in the neighbour hood. Auckland was a small place, am the. restriction of a citizen's rights oft tnor

technicalities was serious. «« was. wile,! in the.neighbourhood of the hotel on business, and if the Act wan to be literally construed there would be no residents in the lane to object. Tho locality comprised business premises and was non-residontial. Mr. Nicholson Said lift would insist On Mr. Richardson being kept strictly to his rights, and submitted that the Act could not bo construed to admit him as a resident m tho neighbourhood. , Mr. IMomnclrl: Has tho point been decided what resident in tho neighbourhood means? ~ Mr. Nicholson: It bears an ordinary version. Tho person must be a resident in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Richardson stated that when ho opposed applications before Mr. Brabant the same point was raised, and he was always allowed to proceed. _ , , : Mr. Blonlnehl: What were you objecting t0? *~ 1 v Mr, Richardson: There were several licenses, but I do not remember them just now. Blomfieid said the Act did not give a Mr. Blomfield said the Act did not give a general right to citizens to object, But residents in the vicinity were contemplated. Mr. Richardson replied, asking for an adjournment to enable him to get a resident in tho neighbourhood to object. Ho believed there was a clause conceding a general right to citizens to object, and if an adjournment was granted he would Hftve an opportunity of looking lip the Act and getting someone who would object. Mr. Blomfieid: We are not here to wait for you to search in by-ways and hedges to bring along someone to object. I hat is not necessary. : Mr. Richardson: There are no by-ways

and hedges; it is nil open road, and I will tret someone. It is fi matter of justice. Mr. Blomfield: Justice is expressed on the surface. , . , Mr. Richardson: I am not referring to that justice; it is the big justice of allowing an immoral man to get a transfer. .. Mr. Blomfield ruled that the Act could not reasonably b« extended to persons living out of the district in which the hotel was situated. Persons living near, being subject to annoyance', would have substantial around for complaint. j Mr. Cheal favoured an adjournment. Mr. 'Richardson (referring to the applicant): He is one of the most notorious characters in the city. , , . , Mr. Blomfield thereupon told Mr. Kicoaittson that he used stronger language than lie was warranted in doing. If he spoke in more temperate language the Court would be inclined to think he was not a person who had a rabid hostility to every licensee. After some further discussion, in which Mr Blomfield several times rebuked Mr. Richardson for his persistency in speaking, I the committee retired to consider if Mr. Richardson had any status. After a few minutes' consideration tlio committee decided he had no status, but as the charges he bad made were of a grave character it decided to call him as a. witness. Mr. Richardson then formally gave evidence in support of the charge of applicant's unfitness to hold a license. , in cross-examination he stated that he obtained his information from newspaper reports. Mr. Blomfield said they could not convict on newspaper reports; they were not evidence. .. 11,1 Sergeant Hendrcy gave evidence and stated that the applicant had conducted the Alexandra Hotel very well. The sergeant referred to the circumstances of the prosecution against the two persons convicted for keeping a brothel, the tenement being on the applicant's promises. He said the applicant was the first person to complain, and gave evidence for the prosecution. The committee agreed that there was no evidence against the applicant, and a permanent transfer was granted.