COOK LICENSING MEETING.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 745, 11 June 1886, Page 29

COOK LICENSING MEETING.

The annual meeting of the Cook Licensing Committee was held at the City Council Chambers on Monday. Present—Messrs F. H. Fraser (Chairman), J. Collins, W. Allen, J. Coombe, and J. Wilson. Mr Shearman appeared on behalf of the police, and the Bar and public were well represented. Mr Ames (clerk) submitted the annual report. NEW APPLICATIONS FOR OLD HOUSES. PRINCE OP WALES HOTEL, TORY-STREET.

Mr C. B. Press applied for a license for this bou3e. Mr Gully appeared in support of the application, Mr W. T. L. Travers representing the owners of the property. Mr Shearman offered no objection, but instanced the case of Sunday trading which had been brought against the licensee od the 16th March last. The house had since been properly conducted. Mr Fraser (chairman) ; We decline to grant this license.

Mr Gully : Oh what grounds ? The Chairman : On the general ground that the house is not wanted. Mr Gaily wished to know the specific grounds on which the refusal to grant a license was based. Had the Committee any evidence that the hotel was not wanted, or was he to understand that it was a mere matter of opinion on the part of the Committee ? The Chairman : We have no evidence to offer. We simply see no necessity for the house.

Mr Gully submitted that there might be facts within their Worships’ knowledge which coaldbe refuted. It should bestated specifically on what grounds their opinion was baaed. He wanted to know what he had to meet, so as to be enabled to bring evidence. If he did not know what he had to meet it would be only a parody of justice to bring any evidence without some specific information upon which he could proceed. The Chairman ; We are quite prepared to take evidence or grant an adjournment. We have nothing more to say. Mr Gully : Might I be informed under what section of the Act the Bench is taking this course ?

The Chairman,: Yes; under the 75th section.

Mr Gully : I do not know whether it is of any use addressing the Bench on a question of law, but I apprehend that section 75 does not apply to a house already licensed. The Chairman believed that the Commitiee bad power to close any house which they thought was not required in a district. It was an open secret at the time of the election that some of the houses would be closed.

Mr Gully said it was an open secret that the Committee had arranged among themselves privately what houses should be shut up. The Chairman said Mr Gully had no grounds for making such a remark. Mr Travers said the applicant was transferee of tbe licensee in whose name the license was granted, and was bound to complete the contract by applying for a license. He quoted from the Act, and submitted that as far as he could see the question as to whether the house wa3 required or not was not re-opened. The section which had been referred to pointed only to the character of the applicant. The transferee was bound to make application in like manner as a person applying in the ordinary course for a new house, but it was in the nature of a renewal of the license, and must be dealt with under the clause of the Act dealing with the renewal of the license. He could not help remarking that the decision was given immediately by the Chairman without conference with the other members of the Committee, which indicated that a previous arrangement had been come to. To arrive at a decision in that way was practically against the rules. It was the rule to give to those who were to be affected by a judicial decision, some notice of

the objection to be urged. Indeed, the Act made some provision for that, for while it allowed the Committee to deal with a matter on their own motion, he interpreted the meaning to be that their decision must be founded on some objection brought before them in their judicial capacity, and not from information received. from Tom, Dick or Harry. The Committee had no judicial authority outside of their judicial meeting. He then referred to sections of the Act to show that notice must be given of intended objections. Continuing, be said the whole tendency of the Act was that the decision should be given after hearing evidence on oath. If it were not so, it would be opposed to the practice of all judicial tribunes. If the Committee were acting, under the 63rd section, it would be proper that they should indicate exactly the matter of objection. The intention evidently was that the nature of the objection should be notified at the time, in order that the applicant should be able to direct his evidence, after adjournment, to the particular grounds of objection. He ventured to say that section 75 would not be found to be the proper provision on which the Bench could rely, for that applied to premises where a license had not been previously granted, or to the case of an old house, the license of which had been abandoned or forfeited. He submitted that that section did not apply Id the present case. The Chairman : It is .under the 75th section that we are taking the objection. We are quite willing to give ten days’ adjournment if it is wished.

Counsel asked that the case stand over for a few miuutes to allow them to confer together. This was agreed to. ARMY AND NAVY HOTEL. James Hamilton’s application was considered. Mr Gully appeared for applicant. Mr Shearman said the previous holder of the license was fined 40s on the 6th March for Sunday trading. The roof was out of order, and the house required painting and papering. Otherwise tbe police offered no objection to tbe granting of a license. The Chairman : The license is not granted. Mr Gully said the case was similar to the one just considered. The course pursued by the Bench was the same, and he understood the Bench were exercising their discretion under the 75th section of the Act. He would request that tbe case be adjourned with Mr Press, until the 18 th inst. The Chairman said the Committee asked him to Bay that the objections taken were under section 75 of tbe Act, but they would take advantage of every other section. They were going by the general tenor of the Act, and they would get all they could out of it. He noticed that the publicans were well represented by Counsel, but little was said about the interests of the ratepayers, who were unrepresented. The applications for tbe Army and Navy and Prince of Wales Hotels were then adjourned by consent to May 18. OLYDE-QUAY HOTEL. Robert Maclellan applied for a license for this house. Mr Shearman offered no objection on the part of the police, but in answer to a question by the Chairman, said he did not think the public would be inconvenienced if the house were closed.

Mr Travers (who, with Mr Gully appeared for the applicant, and Mr Barton for the owner of the property) said the.business of the hotel was not necessarily confined to the mere sale of drink ; the house had accommodation for a large number of borders. His opinion was that there were many houses in the city that were confined to drink. The Chairman : We don’t intend to take the accommodation away—only the drink. Mr Travers said the house would not pay if limited to borders. Mr Barton said the hotel was a very old one, having been built some 18 years ago. There was a vested interest in the house and it was hard if the owner should suffer because other hotels had been built since in the neighborhood. He could bring evidence to show that the receipts were very large, and he could not understand how the police could say the place was not required. Before taking away the license, the Bench should have the clearest evidence that the hotel was not necessary On the application of Mr Gully, the hearing of this case was also adjourned until the 18th instant, the Chairman stating that it was not the intention at present to grant a license. PRINCESS THEATRE HOTEL. No objection on part of the police. Mr Gully appeared ou behalf of B. E. Oxner. License granted. CRICKETERS’ ARMS (J. WOOD). No objection. Extension to 11 o’clock granted. ALBION HOTEL (W. H. THOMPSON). No objection. Extension to 11 o’clock granted. City Hotel (G. W. Tabor). No objection. Extension to 11 o’clock granted. RENEWALS. Renewals were granted as follow :—Newtown Hotel (8. Parkea), extension to 11 o’clock refused ; Tattereall’s (Mary Power), 11 o’clock ; Tramway (Charles Plimmer), 10 o’clock; Grosvenor (W. C. Wilson), 10 o’clock ; Caledonian (Stephen Oliver), 10 o’clock. In the case of the Caledonian Hotel it was decided that the house must be rebuilt within six months or a license would not be re-issued. An extension to 11 o’clock license was refused. Transfers were granted in all cases except for the three houses whose issue of licenses have been adjourned till the 18th inst. This was all the business.