ASHBURTON WANTS HOTELS

Timaru Herald, Volume CLVIII, Issue 23261, 24 July 1945, Page 4

ASHBURTON WANTS HOTELS

Request To Licensing Commission Borough Council Puts Case • N.Z.P.A.' CHRISTCHURCH July 23. ( Seven proposals to enable Ashburton. a town with a population of more than 7000. in a “wet” district to have hotels, no provision ! for local restoration polls having been made under the law since i 1925. were submitted to the Royal j Commission on Licensing to-day by the Ashburton Borough Council to-day through its solicitor IMr L. A. Charles). “The result of the existing legislation has been that the borough of Ashburton and any other areas which, beI tween 1902 and the abolition of the I Ashburton electoral district in 1927. were at any time in the Ashburton electoral district are suspended in mid-air like Mahomet’s coffin, no longer in a ‘no-licence’ area but not having licences nor any possibility of obtaining licences.” said Mr Charles, who quoted the dicta of four Judges of the Supreme Court on the harshness of the law and the view of the Privy Council } “that the whole legislation is supposed to rest on the will of the people as I expressed bv vote, and at least the ! population of Ashburton and portion of Mid-Canterbury would have to suffer | i their fate in silence.” Council’s Contention i The contention was made by the [ Ashburton Borough Council that provision should be made for Ashburton, whose position must not have been | anticipated by the Legislature when the existing legislation was passed. Sumi marised. the submissions of the I Borough Council were as follows, it ! being stated bv Mr Charles, under cross-examination, that the views were those of the Council alone, and that it sought to test public opinion. I That a poll be held at the next | General Election confined to electors resident in the borough of Ashburton on the question of whether or not licences under the Licensing Act. 1908. and its amendments, be granted in Ashburton Borough. That a bare majority be required to carry the proposal. That if the proposal be not carried it should be submitted in the same form at subsequent licensing polls. That if the proposal is carried at any poll the Mid-Canterbury Licensing Committee may grant not more than five licences in the borough of Ashburton. and in granting them to give preference to premises which had licences in 1902 only if satisfied with the situation of such premises and that they are suitable or can reasonably* be made suitable for licensed premises. That if the proposal is carried at any poll no special form of licensing control should be set up in Ashburton, any licences which may be granted being in conformity with tlie general licensing law* then existing. That similar provision may also be made for that part of the present Temuka Licensing District situated north of the Rangitata River which wa-; in 1907 placed in the Ashburton Licensing District and thereby lost six licences, and for that part of the present Temuka Licensing District situated in Ashburton County and the Tinwald Town District, all of which was in the Ashburton Licensing District when it carried “no-licence” in 1902. That if the granting of licences be done, not, by granting new licences but by a redistributing of existing licences. I sufficient can be transferred from all lor any of the Westland. Buller and I Central Otago electorates or from other South Island electorates where the ratio of hotels to electors is greater 1 than 1 to 500. Position Reviewed i Reviewing licensing in Ashburton from earliest times. Mr Charles said that Ashburton voted in 1902 to go “dry,” and at the subsequent alteration of boundaries Geraldine, which had lost six licences, was restored to a “wet" district, but there was no power to restore the lost licences. In 1927 the i Ashburton electorate ceased to exist. [ being joined with Ellesmere ‘a “wet” j district ) to make Mid-Canterbury and ■ the balance joined to Temuka 'another I “wet” district'. Since 1925 no polls j on the question of local restoration had been held at- Ashburton. Since Ash- ' burton became wet numerous agencies i had been opened for hotels and wine and spirit merchants, and the AshburI ton Workingmen’s Club and Mutual i School of Arts had a monopoly’ of the bar sale of liquor. Agents occupied small shops in the low rental part j of the town and did not pay any licence i fee to the Borough Council or provide | any accommodation for the travelling j public. While it was not suggested ; that the present agents were not observing the law. in the past numerous convictions had been made against agents as well as other persons for an offence usually known as sly-grog ' selling. A Monopoly The question whether hotels, if established in Ashburton, could see liquor at the same price as the Ashburton Workingmen's Club and Mutual School of Arts which had authority to sell liquor given in its charter, revived when Ashburton was placed in a "wet” , district in 1927. was raised. Evidence i was given that since 1929 the club ‘ had had a monopoly of bar sale of I liquor in Ashburton, and out of its ! profits had been able to rebuild its premises and reduce its price for liquors to probably the cheapest in New ZeaI land. Mr Charles said the prices were ! 3d for a medium beer. 6d for a pint, i 4d for sherry and 9d for substantial I nips. The club’s membership was | limited to 1309 owing to space limitations, and many applicants were awaiti ing membership. The subscription wao £1 a year with free life membership j after io years, and there was an addi- : tional 4 - a year subscribtion for those j using the club's circulating libraty. | which was probably one of the best jo : Ashburton. If a building permit vere procurable the club would add substantially to its buildings and increase Rs j membership. i ‘Would you say if licences were granted in Ashburton that hotels could | sell at these prices?” asked Mr J. P I Ruth 'a member of the Commission). Mr Charles: I do not think so. Mr Ruth: Why not? • Mr Charles: There is nobody to take | the profit the club makes. Whoever runs a hotel has to make a profit for i himself. ■ Mr Ruth: Did not the club make i profits to rebuild its premises which. I ! understand, cost £13,000? Mr Charles: Yes. The club has re- ' duced the price since. It was charging ; more in those da vs. ' When Mr Charles stated that the club j was a generous giver to every deserving j cause. Mr Ruth said that on the I evidence it was still selling a pint for j 6d. while hotels were charging 7d for I a 12oz handle. There was a question ; of standard prices and measures.