Invercargill Licensing Committee.

Southland Times, Issue 13089, 11 December 1894, Page 2

Invercargill Licensing Committee.

ADJOURNED MEETING.

The quarterly meeting of this committee, adjourned from the previous Monday, was continued yesterday, and was attended by Messrs C. E. Rawson, S.M. (chairman), J. W. Mitchell, D. McFarlane, A. Shaw, J. H. Kissell, J. Stead, J. S. Baxter, E. B. Jones, and the Rev. W. Woollass. The Chairman said the matter for the committee to consider was whether certain applications for the extension of hotel licenses till eleven o’clock should be granted. It was a question whether all the applications, fourteen in number, should be dealt with together, or each taken separately. On the suggestion of Mr Wade it was decided to take the four applications which had been before the committee that day week together, and consider the others afterwards. The four applications were for extensions for the Crescent (Mrs Heywood), Albion (W. Searle), Southland Club (N. Johnson), and Deschler’s hotels ; Mr Finn appearing for the licensee of the first-named, and Mr Wade for those of the other three. Mr Mitchell moved that the four applications be granted. In doing so he wished to mention that what was called the temperance committee had been elected on one given principle, namely, that each would vote for a reduction of 25 per cent, in the licensed houses in the district, but on all other questions, inclusive of the one now before the committee, there had been no pledge or understanding. As a member of the committee he had felt in honour bound to support the striking out of 25 per cent, of the licenses, but having done so his understandings and obligations had ceased to exist, and he was at perfect liberty to vote for the proposed extension of the hours. He believed that the extension would promote the public convenience, and would be in the interests of the travelling public, especially the large number of foreign tourists who would presently be flocking here to visit what were called the cold lakes and the other beautiful scenery of the district. For these reasons he held it would be a mistake to shut up the four principal houses now before the committee at so early an hour. Believing, as he had said, that it would be for the convenience of the public, he moved that the applications be granted. Mr Shaw seconded the motion, stating that it was not necessary for him to add anything to what Mr Mitchell had raid. On being put the motion was lost by five votes to three, and the applications were consequently refused. The voting was as follows For the motion : Messrs. MeFarlane, Mitchell and Shaw. Against: Messrs Baxter, Jones, Kissell, Stead, and Woollass.

Mr McFarlane asked if it was true that Mr Kissell had sent in his resignation as a member of the committee 1 Mr Kissell said it was not.

Mr Rattray made a similar application on behalf of the licensees of the Clarendon (Mrs Sunnau) and Park View (D. Coakley) Hotels. He wished to urge the [committee, he said, to give weight to Mr Mitchell’s remarks at the last meeting, because it was the wish of the licensees to carry out the law to the utmost of their power, aud to have the assistance of the committee in their endeavours to do so. If the houses were closed at 10 o’clock it would be very difficult indeed for the licensees to strictly observe the law. There was probably no use of adding anything more, doubtless the applications would be refused, but it was his duty to bring them before the committee.

Mr Shaw moved that the applications be granted. The committee had met there on the previous Monday, and he considered it very unfair and unjust that they should have adjourned and thereby put the applicants to additional trouble and expense when they knew very well that they were not going to grant their applications. It seemed to him that they had simply been making fools of the applicants.

The Chairman said the adjournment had been carried on his vote. He had informed the members of the committee that there was no other business to be laid before them than an application for a transfer of the license of the Clarendon Hotel. They had therefore been taken by surprise, and he thought they were entitled to the adjournment.

Mr Finn said he had lodged a notice that he would apply for the extension of the Crescent license some days before the meeting. Mr Wade said the Act provided that any licensee could apply for an extension at such a meeting, no notice being necessary. That being the case the committee ought to have come to the meeting prepared to deal with such applications, and not fall back on the weak defence that they did not know or were not prepared. It would not do, for for instance, for a jury in the Supremo Court to say “ Oh 1 we did not know we would be called on a sheep case, or we would have found out something about it. We are not prepared.” This was surely not within the province of a jury, nor within that of a licensing committee. It seemed to him that the adjournment had simply been made to give an absent member an opportunity of coming there and voting against the applications. (Applause). The Chairman repeated that he had told the members of {the committee that there was no other business but the transfer, and the bringing up of this other matter seemed like springing a mine upon them. Mr McFarlane seconded Mr Shaw’s motion because he thought it would be a great inconvenience to the public to close the hotels so early. It was only a fevj! weeks ago that a member of the committee, the rev. gentleman on his right, had been with a drunken man and had demanded admission to an hotel after hours to get the man a bed. He asked Mr Woollass if that was not true?

Mr Woollass said it wasmuite true. Mr McFarlane said Mr Woollass had been in company with a drunk man and hnq found it necessary to demand admission to an hotel after hours, and yet fie voted against a reasonable extensiqn of the hours, Mr Woollass saiii it was not only after ten when he demanded admission, but also after twelve, so that an extension to eleven would have had no effect. The motion was then put and lost, the voting being the same as formerly. Mr Hanan said he appeared in support of other applications, and suggested that one vote should be taken with regard to all of those remaining. This course was adopted, and on the motion of Mr Jones seconded by Mr Wool*

lass, applications for extensions for the following houses were refused Criterion (Collie), London (Brass), Carriers Arms (Hushes), Princess (Bridge), Hibernian MX J, Empire (Whitaker), Railway (Mrs Tulloch), and Shamrock (McAlister).