THE LICENSING COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3674, 1 December 1874, Page 2

THE LICENSING COURT.

DUNEDIN. The quarterly licensing meeting was held at noon to-day, the bench being occupied by Mr Bathgate, R.M., chairman, Mr btrode and Mr Mason, commissioners. “NEW APPLICATIONS William Currie applied for a license for the Cricketers’ Arms Hotel. Princes street south. Mr Torton was heard in upport, and read a memorial signed by the members of tbe Dunedin Cricket • lub, urging the granting of the license an a matter of convenience.—Mr Bathgate observed that applicants should bear in mind that in constituting these licensing courts, it was the intention of Parliament that some degree of uniformity in the Court's decisions shouh be maintained : that tbe decisions should not be subj icted to the fluctuations that used to take plhce in olden times, when it was quite common after (upon consideration of all the circumstances) a license hadbeon refused, for applicants to renew their applications before Coui c after Court until their perseverance was rewarded by the applications being granted. It was also ruht to say that the policy of this Court was totally opprsite to such a practice. Every decision of Court must be looked upon as res gestee not to be opened up unless some very strong circumstances were shown. It was the intention of the Comt to adhere to its foi mer decisions of refusal in every indivicase, unless some very powerful reasons to tne contrary, or some change of circumstances existed, With those general observations the application would be refused, J\»mes A. L. Richmond applied for a license for a house at the corner of Duudas and Leith street. {There was no opposition on the part of the police, the Commissionrr stating that the applicant’s character was good and the accommodation the house afforded excellent, while Mr E Ccok, who supported the application, produced a memorial urging that it should be granted, and signed by 170 persons. Mr Bathgate said it must bo understood that it by no means necessarily followed that the refusal of a li e> se by the Bench reflected in the slightest upon the applicant’s character. The applicant might b) a v* ry good citizen, and be of very good character in every particular. But there were other circumstance! which tho Bench was bound to take into consideration. ill's application was before the last licensing Court in Apiil last, when fo? reasons then stated it was re used. There was very strong opposition again-.t the application bring granted, and evidence at conciderable length was led and many facts adduced by the witnesses to show the Court that the application should not be granted, apd accoi' ingly it was. after mature consideration, refused. Under such circumthe Court could not drag the population of that neighborhood into the Court time after time. The onus mnst he upon the applicant of showing that all opposition was withdrawn, and that had not beoo done here ; therefore the decision of the Court would be adhered to. Mr Cook applied for an adjournment to enable bis client to adduce evidence that opposition was wi'hdrawn. Mr Bathgate replied that the Bench had a strong opinion upon the question of adjournment. They were not going to sit merely to re-hear cases already decided Such a practice led to an absurdity, and was the g- eat drawback of former licensing courts. It encouraged perseverance and importunity, and the Bench wanted to take away opportunities of that kind, Mr Cook remarked that that could not now happen, as new licenses could only be applied for once a-year. Mr Bathgate said it came to the same thing, the applications would be renewed year after year, and the Bench knew which side would win, because the public would get disgusted, and would not again attend, having once done their duty Iheie must be either chi-nge of circum stanctp, or that the parties previously op posing'were now not doing so.—Mr Cook had once heard one of the Coinmii-aioner’s say that silence gave consent, and he c uld not conceive a stronger case than this. The Bench agreed to postpone the farther considerarion oHhe application till Tuesday, Mr Bathgate intimating that the applicant would require td prove most conclusively that the parties parties who oppo ed at the last meet mg now consented to the applicalion being granted, ami even then it was still open to the Court to refuse it on other grounds. The applications of Eleanot Collins, James Hyndman, tf. W. Sheppard, Michael Cox (who did not appear), Benjamin Perry, and Bridget Forster were refused. Those of [.. J. Marshall (Waikari), and Thomas Hefferuau, and Nicholas Maloney (south Dunedin) ' were adjourned till Tuesday In reference 1 to the two last mentioned. Mr Bithgatesaid u the Bench granted any license in the dis- 1 tnct they would take into consideration the 1 house most convenient for the public. James .Armstrong applied for a license for ■ the Plough Inn, Hillside. On the application being mentioned, a Mr Cameron said, through the non-publication of the list of applicants, as had been done hitherto, the • residents of Caversham had had no oppor- ' tumty of lodging objections to applications. He therefore asked that they might be 1 abowed to do so through counsel. The 1 Commissioner of Police suggested that Mr : Cameron should tender himself to the police * as a witness, which he did. The present application was opposed by the police, because the house was not reqnired in the t locality, and a license was refused to it at pe lasp meeting. License refused.' a The * following applications -were also c grapted t—George Peal {MatfeloftT Bay), • I

Henry Pairbank (Portobello). Tbe follow* mg were refused : -Elizabeth Arrow, Robert Cadzow, and David Grant Mr Bathgate said that anyone having once been fined for a reach of , the Licensing Ordinance need T m appl y * or a license, ‘as none SvSL 1 * Branto '• Afc four o’clock Mr 3 fc WM ar K um R that night licenses were unnecessary. ,