THE PELORUS HOTEL.

Colonist, Volume LVI, Issue 13448, 2 June 1914, Page 6

THE PELORUS HOTEL.

THE APPLICATION GRANTED

Charles Herbert Satherley (for whom Mr. Harley appeared) applied for a removal of the. license of the Pelorus Hotel at Canvastown.

Mr. Moore appeared for the owner of the premises (Mr. J. Shields). Mr. Harley asked if Constable Mathieson's report came in as part of the Inspector's report. If not he objected, as Constable Mathieson was not an inspector of licensed houses. The chairman said there was nothing to show that Constable M&thieson's report cam-? from the Inspector of licensed houses.

i Mr. Harley said he was instructed that there was a good deal of feeling in this matter. He submitted that no person under the grade of a sergeant '■ could report, consequently Constable Mathieson could not report. Sergeant Hansen had presented a report, but it was received too late. It should have been in at least ten days before the meeting. Sergeant Barrett said that he forwarded the constable's report to the Clerk of the Licensing Committee. The chairman said there was nothing in the report to show that it had come from the Inspector of Licensed Houses. Mr. Harley pointed out that there was no comment on the report by the Inspector of Licensed Houses. The chairman said that Sergeant Hansen\s report was too late. Mr. Harley said that the report of the Health Inspector was not received until Saturday morning, and he submitted (1) that it was the report of an unauthorised person, and (2) that it was too late. Mr. Harley also submitted that no formal objection had been made to the granting of the license. The chairman said that no notice of objection had been given. It was for the Committee to say whether they should call upon the licensee to show cause why his license should not be granted. Mr. Franklyn said as there were no legal objections to the application, the license should be granted. He moved to this effect. Mr. Trask seconded the motion. i Mr. Pettit thought the Committee should satisfy themselves in regard to the licensee, and he moved that the Committee take notice of the objection. The chairman seconded the amendment. Mr Atmore thought it would be more satisfactory fo'f all concerned if the case was heard instead of being waived by a technicality. The motion was withdrawn, and the amendment was carried. Mr. Harley said he was prepared to go on. The hearing of the objection was then proceeded with. Mr. Harley said that they were prepared to comply with the Health Officer's report entirely. Evidence in regard to the conduct of the hotel was given by Constable Mathieson. Witness stated that applicant was convicted and fined £2 for permitting drunkenness on his premis-1 es, on New Year's Day. He was pre- j sent in Court when the conviction was made. Applicant had also been convicted and fined £10 for Sunday trading, and his license had been endorsed. Another charge had also been made I against applicant, but it was dismissed on a technicality. In reply to Mr. Harley witness denied that he was biassed against the applicant, and said his report was perfect I v true. Mr. Harley subjected witness to a severe cross-examination in regard to a statement in his report that witnesses were "induced" to attend the meeting ,and give evidence in favour of the licensee. - Witness, after several questions had been asked by Mr. Atmore, admitted

that he should not have used the word "induced" as ho did not mean to suggest that any inducement had been I offered the witnesses to attend. [ Evidence showing that the hotel was well conducted was given by Messrs. , GUvstonbury, C. F. Hart, ErF. Healy, and C. L. Diamanti. Charles Herbert Sathorley, licensee of the Canvastrff.vn Hotel, in evidence, admitted the two convictions against him. He denied that he permitted drinking on his premises on Sunday, and explained in regard to the conviction for selling liquor during prohibited hours that the travellers he supplied the liquor to went to the hotel, and said they were stopping to dinner. As they were hot and tired he stipplied them with a drink on request. ' Mr. Harley read letters from prominent residents, including the vicar of Havelock, the schoolmaster at Canvastown, and several Justices of the Peace, testifying that the hotel was well conducted.' Mr. Harley read a petition signed by 40 persons, vouching for the good conduct of the house a also extracts from the report of the case in which applicant was convicted for permitting drunkenness, showing that the offence in the circumstances was a trivial one. The chairman said that for his part thp convictions must stand, but they did not necessarily mean that the house was badly conducted. In one ci-se- there seemed to be somp extenuating circumstances. The. evidence as 'to the good conduct of the hotel was overwhelming, and the Committee must be guided by the evidence. Personally he thought the licensee should be warned as to his future conduct. Mr. Atmore said he knew the men who had testified to the conduct of the hotel. They were men who stood well with the community, and their word must be taken. Mr. Pettit said he was not prepared to believe that the police report was manufactured without grounds, and the licensee should take w&rning. He would oppose the granting of the application. The application was granted, subject to the repairs being carried out, Mr. Pettit opposing. Before the meeting concluded the chairman said that while the Committee appreciated the reports of the Health Department, in cases where buildings were condemned, formal objection to the granting of licenses should be made, not simply to report , the fact and leave it with the Committee. In the future the Committee would expect this to be done. The meeting adjourned at 5.30 until Saturday, 13th June, at 10.30 a.m.