Refusing Hotel Licenses.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XIX, Issue 1848, 23 June 1886, Page 2

Refusing Hotel Licenses.

The Cook Licensing Committee in Welling, ton, all the members of which are teeto. tellers, has refused the renewal of Licenses for three hotels in that city, viz :—The Prince of Wales, The Army and Navy, and The Clyde Quay Hotels. The practical effect of the refusal of those Licenses, is that the hotels in question will require either to carry ou business as Temperance Hotels and Boarding Houses, or shut up altogether. As these three houses depended almost entirely on their “ Bar Trade ” and the sale of drink, the probability is that it will not now be worth while keeping them open. The Liceng - Committee based their decision on the 75ih clause d the Licensing Act, which runs The Comm!‘ ,fla exercise their discretion in granting or refusing certificate for any description of license, and b.. * not be obliged to grant the same inertly because the requirements of the law as to accommodation or personal fitness of the applicant are fulfilled, unless, in their opinion, there is a necessity lor the publichouse or other establishment for the sale of intoxicating liquors, for which application is made.” The Committee simply said '• We do not think these hotels are required and therefore we refuse to grant the Licenses.” We are inclined to tliiuk that it was the intention of Parliament when passing clause 75, to mike it apply only to applications for Licenses for new Hotels, and not to already existing Hotels. There are several other olpuses in the Licensing Act which set forth the grounds on which licenses may be refused for already existing Hotels, such as insufficient aoonm modation, offences against the Act, mi.con duct on the part of the Licensee, bad manage ment of the hotel, and so forth. This leads to the impression that it was not contemplated by the Act that the license of au existing hotel should he taken away withont adequate reason. But in the ease of new hotels for which licenses are applied for, it is fitting enough that the Committee should have the power of refusal, if they are of opinion that additional hotels are not wanted. We are somewhat surprised that Mr Gully, who acted on behalf of the applicants for the three licenses referred to, did not argue that clause 75 of the Act was not intended to apply to the Licenses of already existing hotels. Possibly, however,- there will be an appeal to the Supreme Court against tba decision of the Cook Licensing Committee, when this and other point* will be argued. Looking at this question in the brood light of the interests of the public, we think it is a step in the light direction to reduce the number of hotels in Wellington. The majority of those houses are not hotels in the real sense of the word. They do not provide a proper table and bedroom accommodation for visitors and travellers, but simply carry oh business as “ drinking shops,” There are a to* realty excellent boteli in Wellington

where good ineais and comforttulo sleeping rooms are proviueJ, but by far the greatci number do no business of that kind, and simply sell liquors. To lessen the number of mere grog shops and to secure first class hotel accommodation should be the object of all Licensing Committees both in Wellington and elsewhere. Of course there will be cases of hardship to individuals when licenses ar>i refuse*?. The recent refusals afford at least one instance of this kind. The Prince of Wales Hotel was leased to Mr Phillips (now a hotel keeper in the Wairarapa) who carried

on the business for some years. A. tew months back Mr Phillips sold the lease of the hotel to Mr Press, who renewed a temporary transfer of the License, expecting to get a renewal in due course at the annual Licensing meetiug. Well, the license was refused to ] Mr Press, not for any misconduct or unfitness on his part, but simply because the Committee " were of opioion that the House was not wanted." It is stated that Mr Press had paid £7OO on taking over the hotel, and that the refusal of the License has caused him to lose pretty heavily all his money and thus be practically ruined. Mr Phillips was lucky in selling out when he did, ns had he remained the license would have been refused all the same. This of course is a hard case, as Mr Press has a large family, but in carrying out reform somebody has always to suffer.