ASHBURTON (SUBURBAN) LICENSING COMMITTEE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1260, 10 June 1886, Page 2

ASHBURTON (SUBURBAN) LICENSING COMMITTEE.

1 The following is the conclusion of our report of the meeting of the Licensing Committee yesterday:— George Watts, cross - examined by Sergeant Felton Witness had an average of about a dozen travellers staying at the house each week. There were twelve bedrooms, six of which were furnished. Witness did not know of any drovers who had stated they would not stay at witness’s house. The witness was further cross-examined in regard to statements ha had made in reply to Mr Caygill. Mr Caygill addressed the Bench on behalf of Watts, and Mr Crisp on behalf of clients the Ashburton Building Society. The Committee retired from the Bench, and after an absence of about half an hour returned, when the Chairman stated very careful consideration had been given to the whole case, and the Committee considered that there was very grave reason why the license should not be granted. They were there to protect the interests of the public at large, and they could not in those interests grant a license to a man who, like Watts, had been convicted i and served a sentence for objectionable con- I duct during his holding of a license. The | application would be refused. Mr Crisp, on behalf of the Building Society, addressed the Bench. He said the Building Society had advanced money, which was still unpaid, before the present Act came into force. The hotel was then well conducted, and, as had been shown by the evidence of the police, the Society had been careful as to the character of any man to whom they would entrust the license, and that it was upon the recommendation of Sergt. Felton himself that Watts was given possession. He quoted secs. 85 and 96 of the Licensing Act, which provided that when the renewal of any license was refused for some reason personal to the licensed person, the licensing meeting at which the refusal was made might, if the Committee saw fit, be adjourned to some date not less than 21 nor more than 30 days after such meeting, and that at the adjourned meeting an application, not being by the person refused, might be heard and determined. Under these clauses he would ask for an adjournment for a month, so that the Society might secure a fit and proper person iu the meantime. If it were not granted, the Building Society, which was innocent in the matter, would be made to suffer. i Sergeant Felton asked if the property did not stand in Watts’s name, thus making him a virtual owner.

Mr Caygill joined in Mr Crisp’s application. The Bench said that if Watts was the nominal owner, Mr Crisp’s argument would fall to the ground. ' Mr Crisp did not dispute that the property was in Watts’s name, but the Building Society held a mortgage to the full value of the property. After a long consultation, the Bench asked if tlie matter were adjourned tor a oontt) j

could the Building Society in the meantime take steps to establish itself as the owner. Mr Crisp said it could. An adjournment, to July 7 was then granted.