TRANSFERRING A LICENSE.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, 13 March 1913, Page 25

TRANSFERRING A LICENSE.

AN INTERESTING CASE AT PALMERSTON. At the quarterly meeting of the Palmerston North Licensing Committee, JMr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., presiding, a case to which a little more than the ordinary interest was attached was the application for the license of the Royal Hotel to be transferred to. the premises hitherto known as Dawick’s Buffet, the Royal corner having been acquired as the site for the new Bank of New Zealand building. Mr. Coopei- appeared for the applican, and described the larger accommodation which would be afforded by the Buffet. This, he said, had a frontage of 76ft. to Rangitikei Street, with a depth of 132 ft, and there was also a section with a fKontage of 6 6ft. to King Street, and a depth of 115 feet. The house contained 8 6 rooms, including a dining room to seat 84 people. Th e lighting was by electric light throughout. There were 4 6 bedrooms for the public, and nine l<or the staff. Eighty people could be accommodated without making up beds, as against 36 in the old hotel. A new circular bar had just been erected- Mr. Cooper read a report by the Health Inspector, who wrote in terms of satisfaction as to the arrangements in general, and commented favourably on the cleanliness of the place. Sub-Inspector Marsack said he had found everything in order. The home was very clean, and would make a better hotel than the old building. He mentioned, however, that the bar which had been put in was not a public bar at all. A sort of little corridor had been made, leading from the outer door to the bar, which made it a private bar. A public bar should open right on to the street. He would recommend a larger door. The chairman remarked that some people objected to a bar which was too open.

The Sub-Inspector replied that there was a tendency now to advocate open bars, and in some instances it had been suggested that the frosting should be taken off the windows, ‘ so that the police could see everything that was going on. Personally he did not go quite as far as that. Certain legal questions, however, might arise as tb whether this might not be considered a pjiblio place, in being a public bar. Very little expense would be incurred to alter it as suggested. Continuing, the Sub-Inspector said that the fire escapes were excellent in regard to the rooms at the sides and the rear, but there were two rooms in the front of the building which were only served by a knotted rope. If there were a little staging connecting with the othei- part of the fife escape it would be b.etter. Otherwise the house was in perfect order. Mr. Loughnan. stated that he was aicting for ( the owner of 'Dawick’s premises- Mr. Dawick would b e the holder of the license after the transfer was granted. Mr. Loughnan suggested that the Sub-Inspector’s recommendations be left over till the June meeting, when the application for renewal would dome forward, and in the meantime Mr. Dawick could satisfy the police on these points. The Sub-Inspector intimated that he was agreeable to this course. The Magistrate said that some lodgers preferred having the bar secluded, but the police had a different aspect to consider. The Sub-Inspector pointed out that tue lodgers could go in without being troubled by the bar at all. The transfer was granted on the conditions.. requested. Mr. Loughnan 'tl'fen applied for a transfer of the hclldership of the license from A. H. Rogers to A. G. Dawick, and this was granted. The new hotel is to be known as the Royal Buffet. His Worship said he understood that Mr. Rogers had conducted the Royal Hotel very well, as some of the members of the committee had said, he ought to be commendedThe Sub-Inspector said that during the six or eight months h e had been stationed there h e had found the Royal So be conducted in a firstclass manner. His Worship said the Committee thought it would be advisable to have quarterly reports on the conduct of hotels. Things had occurred in the past which, they considered would not have been allowed to exist so Jong if the premises were reported on quarterly. The Sub-Inspector said there was no trouble in presenting a detailed quarterly report, and this had been done at the last two meetings, but during the past quarter the conduct of hotels' had been unexceptionable, and, as there was no business carried on from the last meeting, lie had nothing to report.

LIKES A GLASS OF WINE.

The Lord Mayor of London is of opinion that the manners of Londoners. are steadily improving, and that the improvement is one of the features of the day. “I have been a magistrate of the City for sixteen years,” the Lord Mayor told an “Express” representative, “and it was a great satisfaction to me the other day to congratulate the City on the improvement indicated by the fact that I had no cases to try. I certainly think it is a proof that the manners of London are better than they used to be, and if only men would learn to use alcohol wisely, the bulk of the work the magistrates have to do would disappear- There has been a great improvement in this respect, and there is unquestionably less drunkenness and less of tlm misbehaviour •• due to drunkenness than there were years ago.” “I am not a teetotaler, although my immediate predecessor was,” Sir Thomas Crosby added, “and I like a glass of wine with my dinner.”

THE VILLIFIED HOTELKEEPER.

When the lay Press is short of “copy” it exhumes stock grievances, real or supposed, and with an extraordinary wealth of imagination and verbiage constructs fairy tales which at least afford piquant reading to the sensation-loving public (says, London “Caterer”). And one of its favourite themes seems Ao be >the shortcomings of its country’s hotels —those abroad are usually extolled up to the sKies —and the delinquencies of their keepers. One is quite familiar with the indictment. The hotelkeeper is painted in lurid colours as a more or less polite bandit obsessed by one fixed idea —how to run up the bill. Correspondents take up the cry and relate their awful experiences of mine host's rapacity and his failure to satisfy their particular fads and fancies in regard to fc/od, accommodation, service, and all th e rest of it. No wonder the muchbaited hotelkeeper, like the prover-bial-worm, turns at last. in a spirited reply to some newspaper criticisms, Mr. Stanley Hoiman, manager of the Queen’s Hotel, Cheltenham, has put forward some points which fair-minded people cannot but appreciate. He ,says thef “English hotelkeeper is a weird tag ti.at has done duty in every ridiculous discussion on hotel charges for years,” and he wants to know who he is—this hotelkeeper upon whom the writers of letters to the newspapers pour out their wrath. “Nearly every ‘reputable -otel’ in England,” he declares, “belongs to some joint-stock company, not to some robust and grasping publican. The boards, composed of nobl e and business men, are the hotelkeepers; the managers are generally promoted foreign waiters who know nothing of accountancy, or 'finance, but who are willing to take a rather inadequate salary and carry out to the exact letter the duties of receiving and charging visitors on lines laid down by the board.

“The response to the public belabouring of the hotelkeeper to provide lounges, palmcourts, telephones in bedrooms, private bathrooms for each person, music, children’s playrooms, valets, page-boys to run errands, and Heaven knows what not —free of charge—has been coupled with a demand for ‘inclusive terms,’ representing a rebate of 30 per cent., with the result that the unfortunate shareholder receives no dividend. On the other side, food is now 25 per cent, dearer than it was ten years ago; rates the same in many cases, and more in some; wages are higher, there are insurance of staff and li-cense-duty; and there is the crowning absurdity of the Compensation Fund. “Contemplate the case of a hotel with a turnover of £lO,OOO per annum, of which £330 is for wines, spirits, and ales, having no bars or accommodation for outsiders to drink in, that can by no possible means benefit by any public-houses being closed, compelled to pay, in addition to its extra rating as licensed premises and its license, a further sum of £33 per annum to the Compensation Fund for Public Houses. . “Let us have a little off the taxation, Mr. Critic, and we will give you a free bathroom, though I regret to say the idea that the Englishman likes his bath is erroneous, though

he loves a bathroom free, as it saves paying for a dressing-room, and he can stow his wife’s luggage in it, •clean his hunting or golf kit in it, sleep his dog there, and a dozen other things, and perhaps have a bath.”