LICENSING COMMITTEE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5582, 4 June 1896, Page 3

LICENSING CO MMITTEE.

LYTTELTON. The annual meeting of this committee was held at noon to-day ; present — Mr R. Beetham, S.M. (Chairman), Messrs A. Chalmers, S. H. Willis, S. W. Mitchell, W. R. Dale, J. T. Gifford, J. M. Douglass, W. Kitson and J. S. Monck. NEW APPLICATION. The first application was from- Patrick M'Conville for a license for the house known as the Cambridge Hotel, which was closed as the result of the local option poll. The Chairman asked under what Act the application was made, and the applicant, who appeared in person, said he did not know. After considering for a few minutes the Chairman, said the matter was held over. . NEW LICENSES. Licenses were granted to John Stephen. Cameron, Mitre Hotel, and to W. H. Cox, for the Sumner Hotel, who had been conducting the respective houses under transfer. RENEWALS. The following renewals were granted : — T. C. Hickson (Albion), Richard Richardson (British), C. Brown (Canterbury), Fred. Beverley (Saxon), Mary O'Brien (Lyttelton), John Gordon (Empire), Robert W. Grantham (Royal), Mahala Mason (Heathcote Valley), Mary Ann Rule (Cave Rock, Sumner), Charles Roland Morton (Marine). A wholesale license was granted to H. Hawkins and Co. The police report was favourable in each case^ Respecting the renewal of the Heathcote Valley Hotel, a memo, addressed to Sergeant Rutledge from William Mason, husband pf the applicant, was ' put in. The Chairman said the police reports were : satisfactory, and the memo, could not be considered an objection. The court was then cleared, and the Commissioners sat in committee to consider the application ; from P. M'Conville for a license for the Cambridge Hotel. On resuming, the Chairman stated that the application would be refused on the grounds, first, that the committee had not power to grant the license, and if it had the house was not required in the district.

[Per Press Association."! GREYMOUTH, June 4 The Grey Licensing Bench granted bottle licenses, holding that the Act of 1895, was contradictory, and only precluded the issue of new licenses. The Bench further relied upon sub-section 6, clause 12, which gave licensees the right to two successive renewals. It is understood that the prohibitionists contemplate an appeal to the Supreme Court. '