REMOVAL OF LICENSE.

Thames Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 8063, 7 June 1895, Page 2

REMOVAL OF LICENSE.

The application of Fanny Constant for the removal of her license from the Thames Hotel to the premises known as Marshall's buildings, Albert street, was. then called on. To this there was an objection filed signed by a large number of people. Mr Cotter appeared for the applicants, and Mr ILuine for the objectors. Mr Baume submitted that tlie application was informal, because it did not say the rarne of the district. The Chairman said tlie application stated "Grey street, in the Borough.of Thames." Mr Baume : I wisli to have the poHt' noted. I wV.I not take any time over it. -...,'

Mr Cotter : Will you take any ? The Chainran addressed the Committee upon what be termed a<':highly technical objection,' and spoke against it being upheld.

Mr Baume undertook to take the Chairman's ruiirjjr upon all technical objections, this one included. ■ This was then sgreci! to, and the objetion referred to was ove.-ruled.

Mr E. H. Tajlor said that a8 a resident of the neighborhood he desired to say a word on the matter.

The Chairman: Did you sign the memoiial ? .

Mr Taylor : No, but he raked the objection under section 50.

The Chairman s;>sd he could not allow Mr Taylor to appear as junior counsel *o Mr Baume.

Mr Taylor said he had no connection with Mr Baume. He objected- in the fic,st place because section 56 of the Act had not been complied with,,..inasmuch as tbe no ice of application for removal had not b in sffixe'i to the front door of the premises for the latA 21 "days

Tiie Chairman : Are you " a resident ia the neighborhood of the premises ? "Where do you live ?

Mr Taylor : My residence is bordering on.Grey street. ■.

The Chairman : How far do you live from Marshall's buildings?

Mr Taylor: [am oa the Burgess Roll of the Borough. I rlways thought that was sufficient,

The Ch<»i r(nan : No. The objector most be a resident in the nei^hboihood of the premises.

Mr Goiter pointed out that ratepayers must, objtwt liy petition. Mr Taylor: Well, I have mack' my personal objection, and must retire, I suppose. • ' . The Chairman ; Yes.

Mr Cotter then addressed the Cjurt on behalf of ihe applicant. He referred to the Committee's acquaintance with the ait- ' uation of the proposed hotel, so that they would know full well how much such a house wa* required in the neighborhood. The period of depression through which tho Thirties h-.d pa3-I.il was dealt with, after which Mr Co'.ter went on to refer to the great improvement that had taken place in mining. As a consequence of this he maintained lhat increased accommodation was needed.. He Ind no desire to conceal anything. Mrs Constant hatf, after some negotiation, agreed to dispose of her ri^ht in the license to tho client) for whom he now appeared^ and if the removal were granted it was in'ended to make the house at least fully equal to any , hotel on the Thames, Marshall's.buildings would not l:e allowed to remain ?n they wine at present', as the ; " memorial" made it appear. They would be enlarged and improved, and every accommodation afforded, When it was proposed to remove a lkenis from a small hotel to a building which it was intended to make a really first class hotel, it w.ss necessary, he submitted, tuat very grave and weighty objections shou'tl be shown before .such a removal was refused. Tue memorial referred to set fonh sis objection?, but he would presently sh >w \ii. t onlyone wa* deserviug of any consideration. The |..rovis ohs of the Art re removal oi! licenses were thea quoted, Mr Cotter laying special stress upon seciona 97 and 98. Section 62 set forth the objections that may hi taken to the graniiog of a license, j

Th? objections must be strictly within the four i'Oiv.crs of sec>l(>n 62. The first obji.3!io j was tiiat at the last annaal meeting two appHca ions far renewals were refi^ed for licenses i<\ the vanity. But this did nrt, he held, to ome under the Hst of objeciitins ondtr section 62. The secend objection was th.t there were now seven licenced hou-i?s n the vicini'y possessingo osnple awrrmxlatioD. .-The situation of the Pacific, Wharf, and Qieen's Hotels were specially referred to by Mr Cotter, who sad thai if anyone went to .-ix cut of ihe seen Intel* in the neighborhood he c u!d on],- be niplied v.ih cnl particular brew ofdiaugut b«r. Was

tins a proper ;tate of things? asked Mr Cottar.

Mr Baume asked whether Mr Cotter intended o support all statements by evidence ? *

Mr Cotter: Or>urse I will. Iwm eve n go further, and ask Mr Baumo whether lie will mmself deny „,y statement? Conturning, Mr Cotter said there was-a much tolt want at the Thames, because persons who wanted a glass of Dunedin beer could not get it without going to the Junction Hotel. (Applause). He did not want to say too much about' tied 'houses, but it was treasonable for the " memorial " to say that the removal was for ajicense to " another d-stric," This was absolute oonse c—i» iS . was not in aecq-danee with the geognji hicai knowledge fh>y possessed of the diiirict. Then, agab, surely uo one would for one moment belie»e (the clear inference in the "memorial" that it was inteoded to allow Marshall's buildings to remn'n as at""p>b*e.t»r'; Such a statement wn absurd. PUnai had been lod-erl with the Clerk' of-the Licensing Committee, from which it would be seen that ample accommodation wodld be provided, ihe a'kya'ion tuat Marstall's- bui'dingq were .out. of repair was also incorrect. If the Committee cared to make any enjmestion* as^to alterations in tie plaop, his clients would be only too •wiilin;.' lo crry them ouf. Tho section in t;be memorial which stated that the object of ihe removal was purely "a speculative .one " had caused hirii some thought. Everything almost that a business man did was speculation, "ir sum of 1 800 or £1000 was to be expended in the alteration and improvement of. the building, so that perchance the outlay was speculative. It was not intended'that this license should apply to these buildings until they were passed by either Sergt. "Tillies or the whole of the Committee, It was intruded fo prom's a fcood accommodation house and a house vhat would sell Dunedin beer. There was not a bit more of epecnla'ion in this csse than in ths building of a house by anyone, present as to whether they would occupy it, for after all it was speculative as.to how long anyone would live. The new building would be sti improvement and a credit to the town. Clause 6 of the " ra-nkorial" now came, and was a very Jesuitical one. It was that if rjy further accommodation were needed die present 'hensees of hotels would pro|.de it.' But why wait until spurred on toit by a new aoplication? He did not know the names of the hotel-keepers who were noing to do all thi-, but perhaps before the close of the case these sime hotel-keepers would ccme fo ward and give an undertaking to supply draught Dunedin beer. Since the revivil here of the m'uing in. dusiry the number of tbe trailing had maferialiy inci-ea^ed, and ia same cases it had been necessary to turn people away.:He liad no desire to injuve the businesi of any of the present, holders.of licenses. Hia o':enfs were sali>fied that there was room for all. It was fe'.t that there was ample room for a gcoi Rctorrimodation house snd one 1 oat could and would sell draught Dumdin bser. If the applisa ion were granted, the npcesss-y I improvements to the buiidinjj. would be at once commenced and every thine; would be carried out to the fu'l satisfaction of the Committee. He wss quite pepired now to argue thei ob- ' jsct:ons. and contend that Mr Haume was ! cojfi.ied to section 62. The Chairman suggested that this should be deferred until Mr. Bsume had addre??ed the Court. . ■ -:: ■ _-.Mr E. B. Dufrar, manager far Messr« L, D. SfMmn & Co., merchants, of Auckland, was ihen called, and stated that the present 'application, vte.% made on their iiehajf. The firm had made arrangements with Mis Constant regarding her licensp, the ( ?e!ai aof which were set forth in the agreement produced. The signature wes Mrs Constant's. The plans prodaced were those of the pro»os?d alterations aod improvemenis to Marshall's building? The firm hd no desire whatever to hive the license- removed to Marshall's buildings and to carry on business in those buildings as they now stand. They were perfectly willing to rltsr the buildingsin nccordance wnh the pfans producod. He knew that one of the crounds of objection was that 4t the removal was a purely speculative one." '1 heir sole object was to obtain the removal ard to „ alter the buildings to suit the requirements From his inquiries' he considered that the house was decidedly necessary (Laughter) /

Cross-examined by Mr Bauwe : Had beer, at the Thames twice during the past year. Had made enquiries as the result of which he was convinced that another house was necessary. Under this agreement Mrs Constant had been paid £5, which they would of course lose if the removal was refused'

•Mr Cotter submitted that the lagreement spoke for ifaelf.

The Chairman said the asreement was in evidence, and of course spoke for -itself. Continrjin;r, witness said that Marshall's buildings had teen bought. Mr Baume : Conditionally, I suppose ? Witness : You can't buy the building", anyhow. r -

Mr Bame : Is there a bar ? Witness: Not at presort, but-I hope there soon will be.

The witness continued : T4?re was a notice on tho shutters. The sole.object of the firm was to sell whatever beer the public wanted—Duoedin, Ehrenfried's, Brown and Campbell's, or anyone else's There was no guarantee to anyone that Dunedin beer or any other kind should bo supplied.

(Left Sitting.)