RENEWAL REFUSED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19203, 17 December 1925, Page 13

RENEWAL REFUSED.

THAMES HOTEL LICENSE. THE COMMITTEE'S DECISION. PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. The application for renewal of the Thames Hotel license, made by William Frederick Thomas Grigsby, was refused by the Auckland Licensing Committee at a special meeting yesterday. Members of the committee present were Messrs. E. C. Cutten, S.M., chairman, .7. Grace, J. Trevithick, G. Lcthaby, A. .Thompson and E. J. Leydon. Mr. R. McVeagh represented petitioners opposing the appli- j cation, Mr. L. J. Stevens appeared for tho applicant and Sub-Inspector Rawle was present as licensing officer. In asking for renewal of the license, Mi'. Stevens said that since the last meeting of the committee, when an application for removal was refused, a letter had been written to tho Dihvorth I rust Board informing it of the present position of tho license. Ho had received no advice from the board concerning its attitude. He had, however, seen a newspaper report which stated that the board intended to take no attitude in the matter. There was no reason to believe the report was wrong. Tho present position in regard to the old Thames Hotel was that it had been entirely dismantled and 110 liquor was being sold at all. The difficulties in regard to the whole thing were very great. He did not intend to touch upon the law. Finally he asked the committee to regard the application favourably. "No License to Eenew." In opposing tho application, Sub-Inspec-tor Rawle referred to tho terms of the. Licensing Act. Under sections 171 and 138 the application could not possibly succeed by reason of the fact that the owner had 110 intention of carrying on trade in tho old premises. Then section 76 required certain things which were not complied with in the present case. Mr. McVeagh said he agreed entirely with tho licensing officer. Section 70 provided specifically a minimum of accommodation before a license could be granted and this accommodation was not provided. Then, again, the license ceased to exist from June 30, and in actual fact there was no license for renewal. In these circumstances the committee was not competent to grant a renewal. "I have nothing to say on the matter of law," said Mr. Stevens. "My friend's statement is no doubt correct." No Proper Premises. At this stage the committee went into conference, which lasted only a minute. In giving the decision, Mr. Cutten said that while the members had personal sympathy with Mr. Gleeson in respect of the trouble and expense he had been put to, they were satisfied the application could not be granted, because there were no proper premises available for the purposes of the application. Mr. Stevens said that at the last meetins: it was pointed out that if Mr. Gleeson applied for a new license he would get some consideration from the committee. He asked the committee's attitude at the present time. Mr. Cutten said when such an application came along the committee would be new and he would say nothing which would bind the present committee or the new one. Mr. Gleeson's Intentions,^ The position now is that the license has lapsed. A new committee will be elected in March and it is open to anyone to apply for a new license at the annual meeting in June. Asked yesterday if he intended to apply for a new license Mr. Gleeson stated he did not desire to say anything about it at the present juncture. In respect of the new premises in Quay Street Mr. Gleeson said he was bound to finish the plastering and so on. Asked what use lie intended to make of the premises, he stated he could not say definitely at. present.