LICENSING COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3836, 10 June 1875, Page 2

LICENSING COURT.

ADJOURNED ANNUAL MEETING^

Thursday, June 10.

[Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M. (chairman), i A. C. Strode, Esq., K.M., and J. Fulton, ’ Esq., R, M.] The Court proceeded to give its judgment on the question of the right of a publican to have a store attached to his licensed premises. The case called on was the adjourned application of James Baxter, Maitland Hotel. The Chairman said 4 that the had been adjourned for a week to give them full time to consider the bearing of the argument set up on behalf of the applicant—that there-was a vested interest in thoseparties who already had stores, and the intention of the Court was that the prohibition should only apply to any new licenses. The minds of the Bench were made up that a store in .connection with a publichouse was a very mischievous thing for the interests of the public; the spirit of the Act was undoubtedly against it, [whatever might be said in regard to its being limited only to new applicants. It was the intention of the Bench that every licensee should give his undivided attention to the_ proper carrying on of his business, and it was not reasonable to think that a man who has two businesses can do justice to the more important one—that he should give more attention to the sale of alcoholic drink. The Court accordingly! were bound to . ref use licenses to all persons having a store in connection with a public house. They had discretion under the Act of 1873 to refuse any licenses, but they did not wish to take any applicants unawares, so would grant all licenses so situated to-day. All parties so concerned must, however, dn their best to make some' arrangement whereby they can dispose of their store business before the next Licensing Court. The licenses were granted, but applicants must within the twelve month sell their store business.—Mr Baxter.: Do I understand we can keep open for a few months to dispose of our business?— The Chairman: Yes, the license will be granted, and you will be allowed a short time to sell your goods —the sooner ; the better.

James Buntiag, Halfway Bush. This case whs also adjourned on the same ground, and the Court placed it in the same category as the last case.—Mr Haggitt, who appeared for applicant, submitted that it should not beplacfed on the same footing. There was a vast.diffetenoe between the two oases. This store was in the country, some distance from any other, and it was necessary that there should be a store in the, district. The case was an exceptional one.—The Chairman: As the Court has made U P its mind to grant these licenses, subject to the observations already made, it is notnecessary for me to make any remarks in a special case.

The application of J. M. Brown, Salutation Ho: el, being on a similar footing, was_granted. John Sibbald, Provincial Hotel—This, cise had been adj ouraed to ouablc the to view the premises and see if the theatre was under the same roof as the hotel The Chairman said that, looking at the importance of this case, they had resolved to make a special meeting on Friday week, at half-past two o clock, to consider it. They looked at it as a matter of considerable importance, Mr Sibbald having, by long ownership, acquired what might be called a vested right. .They adjourned the case to enable them to fully inspect the pre-. mises, and would recommend applicant to appear by counsel, so that the case might be fully atgued.' Thomas Oliver, Sussex Hotel This application was panted, the Bench remarking that if charges of selling adulterated liquors were defeated in the inferior Court, on a technical point, but it was proved that the party had sold adulterated liquor, this Court would be bound to refuse the license.—Mi Harris pointed out that it would be impossible to. show how the liquors were adulterated unless the CJustom House officers were instructed to examine the drink sent here' in bulk, much of which be was was adultered when landed— The Behch considered the suggestion a good one, , ,' , James Forrester. Applicant applied for' 1 a new license for an hotel at Darley, Caversliam Mr Adams, on behalf of Messrs .Duke (master at the Immigration Barracks), Pope, Rutherford, and several Good Templars, opposed the application, which was supported by Mr Harris.—The police reported that it’ was doubtful if the hpuse was required ; and the Bench, seeing that the hotel was not situated op a main road, was of opinion that there was np necessity for the house. The application was accoidingly refused. r The transfer of the Cattle Market Hotel Kaikorai, from Ihomas White to David gusson was granted, , ~ The transfer of the license.; of the Rose, Shamrock, and Thistle Hotel 1 Green Island from Joseph Eagerty to Johu Jenkins, was granted. - ■. i -

General licenses for houses situated near the Ocean Beach, applied lor by E. H. Paterson and HefiEernan, were refused. The applications of Nicholas Malony and llmothy Hayes, both of Kensington, and Hugh Ross, of Anderson’s Bay, for renewals :of publicans’ licenses, were granted, subject to the conditions imposed in Baxter’s case;' ' <’ : Henry Mitchell, Caversham, application, for a general license. Granted.

.Peter Paxton, Michael Dundon, and Robert Cadzow, applied for publicans’ -licenses for houses on the Anderson’s Bay Road.—The Court adjourned the cases. till Friday week, to enable them to determine Whether a licensed house was necessary in the neighborhood, and if so, to what applicant they should grant the; license. :■ . •.i * $ . Gehelwl‘l!ceiist!a' iwere grkiitei jtdW'J.' Coneys, Portobello; Archibald

fwas William Frheer. North-East Valley; William Fitegerald, Blueskin. The transfer of the license of Henry Fairban>£ to Jam<v Baird, for the Portobello Hotel, was granted*

v BOTTM! LICENSE! A new bottle license was granted to John M'Lean, Green Island, and the transfer of the license held by John Collie, King street, to W. S. Harfold granted. The application of Wm. t street, for a license, relUB6CU