WAR REGULATIONS

Otago Witness, Issue 3336, 20 February 1918, Page 43

WAR REGULATIONS

PUBLICAN'S LICENSE CANCELLED. QUEENSTOWN. February 12. The first application in New Zealand for the cancellation of a publican's license under the War Regulations Act of August 21, 19i6. was made before "the Wakatipu Licensing Committee on Tuesday, when Inspector Fouhy, of Invercargill, applied for the cancellation of the publican's license held by James Christie Knowles, of the, Glenorchy Hotel. , - The committee comprised Mr George Cruickehank, S.M. (chairman), and Messrs Arthur Ford and Donald Sutherland. Following were the grounds for the objection :—(1) That the licensee was convicted on September 8, 1917, lor keeping his premises open for the sale of liquor, and was fined £10; (2) that on the same date he was convicted of a breach of the war regulations in that he permitted treating on his premises, and was lined £2O; (3) that on December 1, 1917, he was convicted of a breach of the Licensing Act, and that he sold liquor to a person (already in a state of intoxication), for which he was .fined £2O and • had\the license endorsed. All the convietipns were obtained on the information of Constable E. J. Rowe, of Quecnstown. s Mr L. Turton, for the licensee, said that he appeared for the defence when the first two convictions were obtained, but not in the last case, when another solicitor appeared. Counsel said he was informed by the licensee that the court stated that if he (the licensee) cbnducted his house well for six months no more would, be heard of it. Ho referred to the powers of the Licensing Committee under section 4 of the War Regulations Amendment Act, 1916, as to the rights of the owner of licensed premises. The committee could grant a license in respect of the premises to some fit and proper person until the next succeeding quarterly meeting, when the committee could further consider an application for a new license. Inspector Fouhy said that if the license was not cancelled under the present circumstances it would be almost impossible to imagine any case in which the war regulations of August 21, 1916, couldi have effect. At the time of the first two convictions several charges that could have been proved were, at the suggestion of the bench and the pressing request of Mr Turton, withdrawn. The principal reason pleaded was that the licensee was making arrangements to sell out of the hotel. It was also for this reason that the license was at that time not endorsed. That was five months ago, and the last conviction was on December 1, so that the licensee had had plenty of time to dispose of the hotel. Mr Turton suggested, if cancellation was decided on, that the licensee should get until the March licensing meeting to provide a fit and proper person to carry on until then. . The committee then adjourned consideration until after lunch, and on resuming the chairman remarked that every consideration had been given to what was .put forward on behalf of the licensee. They were impressed by what the inspector said, and thought the license must be cancelled. The committee must not shirk its duty. Cancellation would take effect on March 9. This would give the owner an opportunity to provide a suitablo person to carry o/i the business.