RAGLAN HOTELS.

Waikato Times, Volume 84, Issue 13208, 25 June 1915, Page 4

RAGLAN HOTELS.

THE QUESTION OF DRAINAGE. THE METHOD OF REPORTS. A COMPLAINT FROM LICENSEES. The question of drainage in respect of the Royal and Harbour View Hotels, at Raglan, and the matter of receiving reports in connection with hotel premises generally, were discussed at some length at the annual meeting of the Raglan Licensing Committee, held at Ngaruawahia yesterday afternoon. Health Inspector Bennett, of Hamilton, had submitted a report, and suggested a septic tank system in regard to the drainage at the premises in question, and Mr E. H. Northcroft, who appeared for the applicants, objected to the Inspector being heard. The Inspector of Police was the officer appointed under the Act to make the report, he said, and, as the recommendations of the health officer had not been included, counsel contended that the Inspector could only appear as a formal objector in the ordinary way. At no other licensing meeting in the Auckland province, except at Waikato and Raglan, did the health officer appear. Mr Riddell, S.M., chairman of the Wellington Committee, had gone into the matter, counsel said, and had given a definite ruling.

The chairman, Mr E. Rawson, S.M., said that it might not be the practice in Auckland, but it was the practice in other parts of the province. Mr Northcroft: I protest that unless he is here as an objector Mr Bennett has no right in Court. The chairman replied that Mr Bennett was there to give the committee information.

Mr Northcroft: The Inspector of Police is-the person appointed by the Act, and he is here by deputy. It is not-fair to the licensees, who do not know where they are. It has been the practice in Waikato and Raglan for the Inspector of Public Health to appear, but it has been definitely decided against in Wellington. He has no standing before the committee. The chairman said that the committee had the right to call any witnesses they chose.

At this stage Senior Sergeant Cassells, in answer to the chairman, said that the police report was favourable as far as the licenses were concerned. The health officer's report was not embodied because it had not come in in time.

Mr Northcroft raised the point also that the health officer's report respecting the hotels was not submitted until after the statutory date of the meeting. If it were sound to consider the Health Inspector's report, it was certainly right for him to have charge of the northern end of the district also, otherwise those at this end were penalised. The chairman said that if counsel wished to go into the legal position he would adjourn the applications till a future date. If not, he would advise the committee, and they would follow the course hitherto adopted. Mr Northcroft said that he wanted the committee's ruling. The chairman said that, as counsel well knew, the Act was a complicated one, and he was not prepared to lay everything down in black and white.

Mr Northcroft said that he was prepared to hold his objection under section 111 and go on. The chairman said that he had spoken to Inspector Bennett some considerable time ago, and had asked him to visit and report, and that sufficient notice be given to the licensees. Inspector Bennett said that his report was made on April 29th. He had no authority to submit his report direct to the nolice. #- Mr Northcroft: The Department's bungling is not our fault. I am prepared to deal under section 111 on the assumption that we have had notice of the matter. The committee then proceeded to hear the applications. Inspector Bennett said that the present system drained out to below highwater mark. No objection had been raised about the conduct of the hotels, but the introduction of a water carriage sytem of drainage from the hotels would lie advantageous. It was hard to say what the cost of the two services would be, but he thought about £SO each, or it might be more. In answer to the chairman, the witness said that he understood that the road from Hamilton to Raglan was being metalled, and the chairman re.marked that there was then the probability of an increase in the tourist traffic to Raglan. Continuing, the witness said that he believed both places had wells. There was no water supply in the township. The £IOO he mentioned was practically for material only, and did not include windmills. To Mr Northcroft: The length of piping necessary to connect the two hotels would lie about 3 chains. His proposal was simply a suggestion to the committee. The proposal required to gone into more than he had done. He would say that it was practicable to get the water by pumping. His estimate was only a rough one. He was not aware that the Public Works Department had put in a septic tank system jit the Raglan Post Office and had had to abandon it. Mr Northcroft said that he did not want to raise the impression that his clients did not want to do the work, but he contended that the committee had no power to order it. Counsel quoted from a Supreme Court decision of Mr Justice Cooper's, Penney v. Wairau Licensing Committee to show how far a committee's powers extended in these matters. Jn ' view of that decision counsel held that the merits of the case were with his clients in their application, and if it was not granted it was the. intention of the licensees to apply to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus. The chairman remarked that the latter part of counsel's remarks was quite superfluous.

Mr Northern ft hold that the committee were entitled to know. At this stage the chairman intimated that, apart altogether from tlio legal aspect, the committee were of the opinion that the proposal was too great an expense to ask it to be undertaken. Ho thought that they had power, and if the work could he carried out for a reasonable sum he would be strongly in favour of it being done. The pan sys-