ANNUAL LICENSING MEETING.

Evening Star, Issue 3490, 30 April 1874, Page 2

ANNUAL LICENSING MEETING.

The adjourned annual licensing meeting was held in the Resident Magistrate’s Court yesterday, at noon. On the Bench were M» J. Bathgate (chairman), Messrs Strode, Pulton, and Mason, comm ssioners.' AN IMPORTANT POINT. Mr Macassey brought under the notice of the Court a matter which, he thought, would have the effect of clearing the list of a considerable number of applications. The point he desired to raise was that when a bottlelicense was granted, the holder of the license had conferred upon him all the powers.given under a wholesale license’ Many bit the persona for whom he appeared applied for a wholesale as well as a kettle license, and if the Bench concurred with the view :he took of the law, nearly the whole of the applioaturns for wholesale licenses would be, withdrawn, if the bottle licenses were granted. The Act of 1873 contained no definition of what a bottle license was. Counsel quoted from the Act of 1873, and the Provincial Ordinance, and contended that the definition of a bottle license must be sought'for in the latter, under which there was only a minimum limitation on a bottle licenseholder, who could not sell less than one bottle, secured in a certain way.’ He could sell tea thousand such bottles if he chose • the a PP lic “ts desired to sell bottled liquor, a wholesale license was unnecessary.—Mr Bathgate said the Bench were of opinion that there was no limitation on a bottle-license bolder, provided he sold in bottle, in terms of the Or-dinanpe.--Mr Macassey : Then the Court practwaUy agrees with the view I have subnutted. -Mr Bathgate : Yes.' " . to llr Harm, Itr Batfigate intimated that applications fqr re-hearings would be taken on. Tuesday next at noon : but the Court would then require to be argued the ppiqt whether they had power to grant re-hearings. RAILWAY REFRESHMENT ROOMS, On Mr Macassey’a application, the Bench agreed to defer its decision on the above until Mr Macassey bad moved for a rehearing of the application for a license for the Queen’s Theatre. ADJOURNED OASES. « i?c J. A. L. Richmond; Da this case being called, Mr Stewart intimated that he had one two witnesses whose evidenoe he would like -touring before the Court but he had closed his ease, on the formed occasion., He did pot wish to press their evidence, if objeoted to by the nfcW Cook thought already been shown to the opposition.—Mr Bathgate; Mr Stewart’s request will be granted on two grounds : first, that this is the hrst sitting of the. Court, and parties may be presumed not to know proifcrlv in , det^i 8 ’we Ly^/dis! cretion, and are nof going to tit afiy Demonn oppoamg down to teelmwal rufc*

If afterwards we find the working of the Act leads to a slipshod way of doing business, we may then pass some stringent rules.—Mr Cook sti 1 objected, but Mr Bathgate said th. Bench decided to hear the evidence, and if it prejudiced Mr Richmond to give him an opportunity of calling rebutting evidence. The following evidence was given Wary Dutch, ■ 0 on the next section to the Scotia hotel, said that in her opinion* the tne pubhc-honse was not necessary. [Mr Cook objected to the question, but it was allowed.] She knew it was wrong to have drinking on the lord’s Day.—(Laughter.) Ber Bible told her so, and she had seen four men and three boys go into Richmond’s house on Sunday last. The boys she took to be 17 or 18 years old. It was 13 years since She went down there, and she had never seen so much drunkenness before in that locality as since this house had been there Since the house has been there, there has been Sunday traffic more or less, but on Sunday last there was more traffic than usual. Mr Jauo asked her to come to the Court. (Laughter and some hissing, which was at once suppressed.) She wanted herself to get up a petition against this house, hut as she knew Mr Jago was interesting himself in the matter, she went to him.—George Dutch, husband of the last witness, also stated that he sidered the house unnecessary. —Mr Cook addressed the Court at some . length, pointing out the necessity for the house, which was. 600 yards distant from any other licensed hotel, and referred to its extensure character (it having cost over 12,000) and the excellent accommodation it afforded’ He called D. F. Main, District Land Regis'war, who said he passed Richmond’s house twice a-day on Sundays. He had always looked upon it, as a respectable place, but had never been inside of it. H ever saw any people about the house. The population of the neighborhood is increasing rapidly, and houses springing up, like mushrooms. Not living within two or three blocks of the hotel, he declined to give any opinion as to the necessity of the house. He knew the applicant to be a very respectable man, and the house to be used as a boarding-house by .several young men in offices in town. John Mouat, solicitor, said he, with his wife; three children, and servant, stayed at Rich! znona s Hotel for three weeks. He was a week looking for suitable lodgings. He fouud this ho .se bad suitable accommodation, and it was very quiet. Nevr saw any drunkenness, nor heard any disturbance It was so quiet that the children could always play about. Did not observe any Sunday trading. He would go to this house sooner than to any other public-house he knew;. No other public-house being near was an advantage. Tlfcre was a want of accommodation in Dunedin. The house was i- v b ° ard ® rß i Bom 9 he believed to be clerks.—T. Redmayne, owner or agent for one-third of the property in the neighborhood of Richmond’s Hotel, was of opinion that property there had increased in value by the erection of the hotel, because the expenditure of such' a large snm by Richmond inspired others with confidence in the district, and induced them to build. A house of its character was very much.wanted • and, if properly conducted, was very desira-ble-By Mr Stewart: He had hot stated that sooner than see an hotel go up in the neighborhood he would sell his property Ho believed that property ■ adjacent would deteriorate in value if the license ef the hotel was taken away. He liked the license being allowed, from self-interests.—Major Atkinson said the volunteers practised at a nfle range about a mile and a-half beyond Richmond’s Hotel. '1 hey had used the hotel for convenience at times. It was apparently well conducted.—Hy. Fish, Good Templar, said that in a case of illness he got port wine at this hotel on one occasion at 2 a. m.— Sergeant Hanlon said he had visited ihe Scotia Hotel daily. The place seemed to bv well conducted, and he ‘ had heard no complaints of any disturbance having taken place there. Richmond , was a respectable man.;. By Mr Stewart; So far as he had noticed no more drunkenness had been prevalent in the place since the hotel had been built than previouslyeorge Smith gave similar evidence.—The Bench held that this case was an entirely new application. It was , not . one of those cases - where the applicant' may. have been, for several , years in the management of the house, and where the : character is something, as to . whether to .continue, /the , license or . refuse the application, looking upon it as an entirely new application it must be carefully scrutinized, and a very ■ strong case must therefore. be made out for a new ■ house before the application can be granted. ’ There-was evidence that-the place was ’a - quiet-one, mid that there was ne. hotel within • 40« yards‘of ’the district, but the * character of the applicant alone would not justify the Bench in granting the license to. .a house to the prejudice of that neighborbond. It was a great pity that young men could not find accommodation without

going to a public-house, as the biliiard-rootn wa» a yery necessary adjunct. The Bench of opinion that.it was not necessary to • establish'this been a doubt on their'minds this would have been removed by the injurious effect which it had been proved this hotel had. - Walker street—The Bench simply delivered judgment, aayingthat they had carefully considered the matter, and were inclined to grant the application, though they must say with reluctance. They cautioned defendant not to , merely let those houses which had been referred to, and then say he did not know who occupied them. Daniel, Melican,, Hieing Sun Hotel.—Mr Harris for applicant. Application allowed. Biehard William Shepherd, Royal Exchange Hotel, Walker street.-—This was an adjourned case,' ic which 'Mr. ffi. Cook appeared for the applicant, and stated that the business done was principally a boarding-house , pne. tfe jielievedthere was no objictiedou the part, of the police—Mr Weldon, in wiswer to the Bench, said there were three hotels about this place reserved fordecision, Me London Tarem, Rising Sun, and the Royal Exchange. The liondou Tavern wason one side, and the other two on the oppo- , , fite side of the street, —Mr Bathgate : I see —Mr Weldpn then stated that some time agb Hie number of public-houses in this neighborhood was reduced by two,- in consequence of the continued rowdiness there, caused by the , brothels pppoaite and the prostitutes yyho inhabited them. Since then, by sheer persiatency. the houses had been relicensed, and the master how stood exactly as it did two years ago.—Mr Bathgate ; When were they jreljcenßed.—Hr Weldon; At the last annual ■ I believe About a, year ago.—Mr Bathgate ': When Mr Strode was present Mr Weldon ; 1 don't think so. ' Mr Bathgate said there were three houses that were reserved for further consideration, . the Bench thinking that the whole three were not required. After giving the matter careful consideration, they had selected one , house on the one side, and the other house : 9P the Other, side of the road ; and in making ‘ ' “ a "J* e l ect i on theyhad taken into account ail the attending circumstances in the whole i^ eS ? caß ® B, They agreed to grant licenses to the London Tavern and the Rising Sun, . ana therefore this license would have to be refused.—Mr Cook: I am sorry your Worship . did not hear the three applications together . before, m .king that refusal. .fames Watson, Royal Hotel Granted. 1 ' ' O’Brien, Munster Arms Hotel.

W. P. Woodifield, Bay View Hotel, Maitland street. Mr Stout presented a memorial signed by a large number of residents in favor of tbe application. There was not anything known against applicant’s character.—Mr Batbgato : Applicant is a printer, working at his t ade all day.—Mr Stout; His wife hai had some experience in a trade of this kind, and therefore that cannot be urged against him. He leaves his work at five o’clock every day, and is at home Hur ing the other part —Mr Bathgate said that, seeing the applicant was a printer, and consequently away from home all day, the Bench were not justified in granting the license.

j Michael Cox, Dunedin Hotel, Maclaggan street. Mr Harris appeared for the applicant, and presented a memorial from twenty boarders, testifying to the orderly manner in which tbe hotel was kept, and expressing entire satisfaction with the licensee. There was also a petition signed by sixty-seven of the residents in favor of the renewal of the license. He was assured that Cox had been a total abstainer for some time past, and would r ecnain "so if the license were granted.—Mr Bathgate said that the police report stated the house was in a bad state of repair, and defendant addicted to intemperate habits. —Mr Harris said that were the license granted the house would be greatly improved. —Mr Bathgate said the Bench had already held that there were too many licenced houses in Maclaggan street, and had reserved their decision on the whole of these cases. As in the Walker street cases, they had carefully considered the whole of the circumstances, and had resolved, in the face of the police report, that this house was not required. License refused. Arthur Hornby, Anchor Hotel. Mr Harris appeared to support the license,'which was granted, Benjamin Perry, Alhambra Hotel.—Mr M'Keay, in support, of the application, presented a petition signed by some of the residents and others in favor of the application: The Bench held that such remarks did not apply t6 a man who let his-house to prostitutes, and refused the application. John Forster, Artille.y Hotel.—'This case had been an adjourned one, and applicant now presented a petition as to the orderly manner in which the hotel was kept. —The Commissioner of the police pointed out that che application was postponed to enable the applicant to contradict a statement which he had made that he was a man of intemperate habits—lhe Bench sided with Mr Weldoa, and unanimously agreed to refuse the license. The Court granted Hugh Ross’s application lor the renewal of the license of tbe Anderson’s Bay Hotel. • -Mr Stout supported the application. William H. Eyre’s application for a license at his place was also granted, Mr Harris appeared for the applicant. The applications for general licenses hy Measrs Cadz »w, Fairbank, and Mitchell, who were respectively represented ,-ihy Messrs dtput; M'Keay, and Harris, were refused,,as they had been sent in too late. Mr Harris appeared in the matter of the application of Patrick long, for the Kaikorai Hotel, which, it was explained, was really on behalf of Mr Hyndman —Consideration deferred. BOTTLE LICENSES. The following applications for bottle licenses were granted,: -John Healey, Stafford street ; James Heron, Walker street; Robert Mercer, Princes street; John Mulroqney, Stafford street; David Wood, Princes street; Robert Banks, Princes street. William Barron, Rattray street; Jas. Black. Maclaggan street; John Bowie, Maclaggan street; Hugh Crawford, Canongate street; J. 1. Grego y, Elm’ row; James Hastie, Arthur street; James Hogg, Princes street; ndrew Mercer, Rattray street; Andrew Macfarlane; Princes street; David M‘Leod, Princes street; James Robertson, Princes street; Alexander Durie, George street; Ellen Kyne, Hanover street; James Irvine, George street; David Miller, George street; John M'Laren, Frederick and Castle streets; John Peterson, George street; w. D. Suther land, George street; John Wallace, George street; Alexander Allen, Great King street; David Cpmne, Gre at King street; Jacob Pogel, Great King street; James Leighton, Duudas street; George Mitchell, Great King street; James M'Dougall, GTeat King street; vVilliam Wright, Great King street; Archd. Walker, Great King street. . The following applications for bottle licenses were refused ;—Samuel Bird, Walker street; James Morcomhe, Walker street ; George Elson, Walker. street; Patrick Sheedy, Walker street; George Dryden, Russel street; John Golden, Filleul street; Janet Fempr, George street; F. W. Hoffman, Great King street; John Keith, Albany street; John Russell, Frederick and Cumberland streets; James Watson, Cum.bprland.. street; James Henry Popham, Anderson’s Bay. At a quarter-past six the Court adjourned until Tuesday next. • ■