THE ADJOURNED MEETING.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume IX, Issue 438, 15 December 1898, Page 18

THE ADJOURNED MEETING.

After the action taken by Mr Brabant, the chairman of the Licensing Committee, at the quarterly meeting held last week (Tuesday), the other members of the committee waited upon him as a deputation on Wednesday morning. Mr Brabant, on receiving them, took the chair, thus constituting a meeting. Mr Masefield pointed out that the business of considering one or two applications had been neglected at the previous meeting, and he wished to have the matter decided upon. Mr Wright next addressed the chair, and said that as the applications referred to were to all intents and purposes new ones, he thought that they should be considered upon their merits. Mr Brabant then suggested that they should adjourn, and another meeting should be held on Friday morning at 9.30. This being agreed to, the proceedings terminated. On Friday morning there was a full attendance of the committee, the meeting being held in camera in the magistrate’s room. A representative of this paper applied for admission, but was denied, the magistrate claiming that he had no power to grant the permission. The following particulars were gleaned from a member of the committee. On the meeting being opened, the chairman stated that in his opinion the Exhibition building was not a place of amusement within the meaning of the Act. He then sent for Mr Cotter in order that, in company with Mr Cooper, they might agree to bring a case before the Supreme Court to test whether it was a place of amusement within the meaning of the Act. Mr Cotter was unable to attend, and the magistrate then said that the question had already been determined by the committee not to grant the conditional license applied for by Michael Foley, and because of that determination he thought it would not be right to re-open the case for the same applicant. An expression of opinion on the question was taken, resulting in four being in favor of the application being considered on its merits, and one (Mr Craig) against. Mr Stimpson was called in, and his application for a wine-selling license refused. Mr Tom Foley’s application for a wine-selling license was thought to be a variation of the previous application. After some discussion, however, it was at first favorably considered, but later on it was concluded that it might prejudice the application of Mr Michael Foley for a wine and beer license, and was consequently thrown out. Mr Ledingham, who appeared as representative of the Exhibition Committee, stated that he could not give a hard and fast programme of the musical and other events, as they were liable to alteration, but that a band programme and side shows would be in evidence every day. Under these circumstances, the chairman reserved his decision as to the granting of a seven days’ license to Mr Foley. He stated that he had two points to consider — first, whether the Exhibition building was a place of amusement within the meaning of the Act, and, second, whether he was justified in reopening a case already determined upon by the committee. He would give his decision on Monday morning. The meeting then terminated.