RENEWAL REFUSED

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19478, 22 December 1925, Page 15

RENEWAL REFUSED

THAMES HOTEL LICENSE. THE COMMITTEE’S DECISION. The application for renewal of the Thames Hotel license, made by William I- redeejek Thomas Grigsby, was refused by the Auckland Licensing Committee at a special meeting on Wednesday; reports the “New Zealand Herald.” Aleinbers of the comirnttcc present were Messrs E. C. Cutten, S.M., chairman, J. Grace, J. Trevithick, G. Lethaby, A. Thompson, and E. J. Leydon. Air R. AlcVeagh represented petitioners opposing the application, Air L. J. Stevens appeared for the applicant and Sub-Inspector Rawlc was present as licensing officer. In asking for renewal of the license, Air Stevens said that since the last meeting of the committee, when an appheation for removal was refused, a letter had been written to the Dilworth Trust Board informing it of the present position of the license. lie had received no advice from the board concerning its attitude. He had, however, seen a newspaper report wihch stated that the board intended to take no attitude in the matter. There was no reason to believe the report was wrong. The present position in regard to the old Thames Hotel was that it had been entirely dismantled and no liquor was being sold at. all. The difficulties in regard to the whole thing was very great He did not intend to touch upon th law. Finally he asked the committee to regard the application favourably. “No License to Renew.”

In opposing the application, SubInspector Rawle referred to the terms of the Licensing Act. Under sections 171 and J3B the application could not possibly succeed by reason of the fact that tho owner had no intention of carrying on trade in the old premises. Then section 76 required certain things which wero not compiled with in the present case. Air AlcVeagh said he agreed entirely with the licensing officer. Section 76 provided specifically a minimum of accommodation before a license could be granted and this accommodation was not provided. Then, again, the license ceased to exist from June 30, and in actual fact there was no license for renewal. In these circumstances the committee was not competent to grant a renewal. “I havo nothing to say on the matter of law,” said Air Stevens. “Aly friend’s statement is no doubt correct. ’ ’ No Proper Premises. At this stage the committee went, into conference, which lasted only a minute. In giving tho decision, Air Cutten said that while the members had personal sympathy with Air Gleeson in respect of the trouble and expense he had been put to, they were satisfied the application could not be granted, because there were no proper premises available for the purpose of the application. Air Stevens said that at tho last meeting it was pointed out that if Air Gleeson applied for a new license he would get some, consideration from the committee. He asked the committee’s attitude at the present time. Air Cutten said when such an application came along the committee would be new and ho would say nothing which would bind tho present committee or the new one. Mr Gleeson’s Intentions. The position now is that the lii :><• has lapsed. A new committee will be elected in March and it is open to anyone to apply for a new license at the annual meeting in June. Asked if he intended to apply for a new license Air Gleeson stated ho did not desire to say anything about it at the present junction.