LICENSING MEETINGS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4670, 14 June 1893, Page 3

LICENSING MEETINGS.

1 • AVON. The adjourned annual meeting of the Licensing Committee for the Avon district was held at the Selwyn County Council Chambers at noon yesterday; present— Messrs H. J. Hall (in the chair), G. King, E. Blake, J. Jackson, and H. Nunweek. Mr Joynt appeared for Mr M. J. Sherwin and applied for a renewal of the license to the Courtenay Arms Hotel, White's Bridge: Sergeant-major Mason appeared for the police and opposed the application on the ground that something like a case of lambing down had occurred in connection with the hotel. He was about to call evidence, when Mr Joynt objected that there were no specified charges against the applicant, except that of permitting drunkenness on the premises, and the evidence should be confined to that. Sergeant-Major Mason called Mr J. J. M. Hamilton, agent for the Public Trustee, who deposed that a man named John Norman had been sent to Sunnyside Asylum in October, 1892, suffering from the effects of drink. Mr Shexwin had put in a claim for .£65 18a, the balance of an account of £219 Bs. [The account put in showed the transactions between Sherwin and Norman from April, 1891, until October, 1892, about £25 of the amount being for drink supplied.] The £65 was not allowed, and the Public Trustee served a writ on Sherwin for the full amount. S her win did not want lo go into Court, and the matter was amicably settled by Sherwin paying £40 and costs. Sherwin was asked to produce his books, but he declined, giving as an excuse that they were not made up. To Mr Joynt : He believed the writ was issued against Mr Sherwin for £213. The settlement was made with Mr Bruges, on behalf of the Tublic Trust Office. James Goodman, Managing Clerk for Mr Bruges : Knew Norman, who received over £900 from Mr Bruges in 1892. At that time, though given to drink, he appeared to be able to manage his affairs. An order on Mr Norman's account for £30 was negotiated by either Shepherd or Sherwin. Norman gave a power of attorney to Sherwin ; at least Mr Sherwin said so. To Mr Joynt : Had known Norman for twelve months only. He thought he must have spent at least £500 on land and stock during that time. Had no knowledge of what the order for £30 was for. John Merrin. a farmer residing at Coutts' Island: Had known Norman for about thirty-two years, and remembered his being committed to the Asylum. Knew of his receiving money in February, 1892. During the fifteen months Norman was at the Courtenay Armß witness had seen him nearly every week. During the last four months of his stay there he was drinking heavily. To Mr Joynt : Was not prepared to say that at any time Norman had too much drink at the Courtenay Arms. He generally got too much drink when he went into town. Could not say where he got the drink. Sarah Cbaney, residing at Chaney's Corner: Had known Norman fcr twentyfour years. He was always fond of drink. Knew he had been living at the Courtenay Arms Hotel. David Douglas, a farmer and ranger for the Acclimatisation Society : Norman had been living at the Courtenay Arms for some time before he was sent to the Asylum. Had seen him drunk during that time, but he was not always drunk. Could not say that he got the drink at the hotel. To Mr Joynt: Had often seen him' coming home from Christchurch, and he was generally drunk. Passed the hotel three or four times a week, and never saw anything out of place. . Mr Joynt thought there was nothing for Mr Sherwin to answer, but the Committee decided to hear the evidence for the defence, and would look into the names on a petition put in in favour of the house. Matthew James Sherwin, the applicant, deposed that he had always done his best to prevent drunkenness at his house. Never supplied anyone who waß the worse for drink. Callers often came there the worse for drink, and he always did his best to get them away. The amount of £40 paid in settlement to the Public Trustee was in connection with a land transaction, and had nothing to do with money tor drink. Norman lived at his hotel from April, 1891, till October, 1892. He was always wanting to shout for all the people in the bar. Witness never at any time permitted Norman to get as much liquor as would make him drunk, and had frequently refused him liquor. | Norman had been treated as ono of the i family. He bought land and dealt in horses, and lent a number of Email sums, out of the £900 he received from Home. Was not aware of any complaints having been made by the police as to the manner in which the house was conducted. To Sergeant-major Mason : Norman had no money when he went to the house, and at first paid for his board with orders on Mr Bruges. Constable Donovan, Bt§tioned at Kaiapoi: Had visited the house repeatedly, and always found it well conducted. J. A. Connal: Knew the Courtenay Arms, and had stayed there. Norman was there at the same time, and Mr Sherwin did his best to prevent Norman getting drink. Edward Mulcock, a farmer living at Flaxton : Had passed the house two or three times a week during the past two years, and always found it orderly and well conducted. He considered Sherwin well adapted to hold a publican's license. Corroborative evidence was also given by Robert Hopkins, Chairman of the Ohoka Licensing Committee, H. Andrews, H. Belcher, B. P. Clarkson, Charleß Morris, Charle3 Hurse, Dennis O'Callaghan, P. Stewart, H. Craddock and Constable Hayes. These witnesses deposed ' that the house was well conducted* and j that the licensee had always endeavoured j to prevent Norman getting drink, and had i also instructed hio servants not to serve ; him. Norman was in the habit of going to Christchurch and returning in an inebriated condition. All the witnesses

bore testimony to Mr Sherwin'a fitness to hold a publioan'B license. Mr Joynt having addressed the Committee, Bergeant«major Mason replied, and the Committee retired to consider the oaße. On returning, the Chairman said that the Committee had come to the decision that Mr Sherwin had done nothing that could warrant it in withholding the license, wMoh would be granted. At the same time the Committee wished it to be understood that, it considered there were too many hotels on the North road, and at some future time it might consider the advisableness of reducing the number.