HOTEL LICENCES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22402, 24 April 1936, Page 20

HOTEL LICENCES

REDISTRIBUTION URGED POSITION AT MATAMATA LEGISLATION SUGGESTED [by telegraph—OWN correspondent] THAMES, Thursday At a meeting of the Thames Licensing Committee the desirability of a redistribution of hotel licences was emphasised. An application by Mr. R. W. Bell, of Matamata, on behalf of a client, for support of special legislation to transfer the Ncavesville Hotel licence to Matamata, was rejected unanimously bj tho committee. Those present were Messrs. F. H. Levien. S.M. (chairman), W. Bongard, R M. Rhodes, W. M. Wallnutt, J. McCormick and E. J. McLoughlin. The application was that tho committee should sponsor a local enabling bill which, if passed, would empower the committee to consider tho application for removal of the licence as proposed. Mr. Bell said that there was room at Matamata for more than ono licence, and expressed regret that other interests opposed the application. Mr. E. B. Clendon said his clients were not objecting to tho general principle of a redistribution of licences, but all were opposed to the application in so far as it concerned the Ncavesville I licence, thus leaving other licences in the Thames district as they were at present. Mr. C. J. Garland pointed out that Thames, with a population of 4000, had 13 licences, whereas Hamilton, with a population of 26,000, had only four licences. He considered Neavesville would be entitled to some consideration in priority if the law allowed for , the moving of licences. However, as it stood, there was no law authorising the committee to consider the redistribution of licences. Mr. W. H. Hampson, of Auckland, appearing on behalf of the Arawa Land Company, Matamata, stressed the need of a licensed hotel at Matamata. His main submission, said Mr. Hampson, was that as a judicial tribunal tho committee was bound to exercise its authority along judicial lines, and thus it could not consider the present application. He contended that tho Thames committee was being placed in an unfair position in being asked to consider a question which should come before the Rotorua committeo Mr. Bell said the application would have to be considered by the new committee at Rotorua in Juno.