LICENSING COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3989, 7 December 1875, Page 2

LICENSING COURT.

The quarterly meeting of the Licensing Court was held to day, before Messrs J, Bathgate. R. M. (cnairraan) ; A. C. strode, R. M. ; andJ. Fulton, R.M., commissioners. SOUTH WARD. John France, Builders’ Arms. —This application, which was for a new brick house at the I corner of Melville and Walker streets, was i supported by Mr Stout, who explained that a ; number of houses in the street had their i licenses taken away a short time since, j Owing to the insufficient number of houses J there was now a vast amount; of sly-grog ; selling carried on in the neighborhood.— The police reported that there were already four licensed houses in the locality, which were quite • sufficient. —The Court were of tba.t ; nothing against the character of j applicant, but seeing there were now a suffi- ! cient number of licensed houses in the locality, i the application would have to be refused.

I Night Licenses. Patrick Fagan, Southern I Hovel, granted; Robert Sketch, refused. Transfers.—John Patterson to Thomas Cornish, Royal Hotel; James Ward Cotton to Thomas M‘Ready, i'eacock Hotel, granted. HIGH WARD. Michael Cox, Dunedin Hotel.—Mr Harris I supported this application. The house had | been formerly licensed, but the license had : been taken away, amongst other reasons, bei cause of the intemperate habits of the appli I cant. Sin ;e then applicant has become a Hood Templar. The hotel was one of the oldest in

Dunedin, It contained twensy-one bedroom?, irrespective of sitting ami dining-rooms, and 1 there were,thirty-five boarders If toe license i was granted, applicant intended to re-erect ; more substantial buildings than those now i built,—The Chairman said that the license : had been taken away from this house, amongst i other reasons, on account of the intemperate | habits of the applicant. Another important element was that there were too many licensed houses in the locality, and that guided the Court in depriving the house of its license. They were not at present inclined to allow the the license, and the application would be refused.

Francis Elliot.—An application for a license for the vestibule of the Queen’s Theatre. Mr Harris explained that if the patrons of the theatre wanted refreshment, they had to go a considerable distance for it. The granting of the license would prove as great a convenience to the frequenters of the theatre as to the applicant —The Court were of opinion that a vestibule bar to a theatre was vicious in principle, and even affected, to a certain extent, the character of the place. Prostitutes and persons of indifferent cha-

racter were apt to frequent it, and the Police Court records showed how much mischief arose in such places, so the Court had set their faces against granting any licenses to bars bo situ ited. Persona going to a theatre who might desire refreshment before going home, could get it close by, so that the objection to distance did not apply; while if persona could not sit out theatrical representations, but must run out for refreshment, they should not go at all. The license would be refused. In reply to an observation which fell from counsel, the Chairman stated that if a license for the new theatre was applied fjr, the Court would undoubtedly refuse

Night licenses were granted to Joseph Davies, Albion Hotel, and Thomas Pavletioh, Universal Hotel, The Bench refused the application of George Bowes for a bottle license in the Arcade, holding that a house at each end of the Arcade would provide any necessary accommodation. BELL WARD. Transfers of general licenses were granted as under :—Robert Fenwick to George S. iStuart, Supreme Court Hotel; David U ‘lntyre to Robert Fenwick, Adelaide Hotel. Messrs Stout and Harris represented the parties. Applications for bottle licenses by Beda Singer, George street, and Oscar I ouis, Albany street, wer? refused. The Bench in dealing with these applications, said that they did not wi,-h to extend the bottle license system. I here were exceptions to the rule, and when it was shown that the applicants did a very large business, and that their business was well conducted, the Court would not countenance a monopo y. The applications were refused to-day, but the applicants might renew them on another occasion, when the police would make a special report on the amount of business done, and its general character.

SUBURBAN. Thos. Heffernan, St. Hilda.—-Application f or publican’s license. Mr Stout explained that this hotel was the second built on the St, Kilda road. The Court had, however, on a former occasion, granted a license to Mr Maloney, because his hotel was larger, and refused one to applicant. The Chairman said that, to judge from an exterior view, Maloney’s Hotel was certain iy a very creditable structure. It was a two-storey building, and a very handsome concrete place. Apjdicant must wait till the annual roeotirur, as the Court, unless in very strong cases, would not grant new licenses at the quarterly meetings, The public might object to be taken by surprise, and it would be better if the applicants would await the annual meeting. James Forrester. —Application for publican’s license on the Forlmry road. Refused A’ight Li etises, —Applications for nicht licenses by D add Ferguson, ‘ attle ♦laiket Ho'el, Kaikorai; by John Ross, and by John •Jenkins, of Green Island, were refused". he Court directed Ferguson to again apply at the ■n. U'.'l m aaing, when tin- Commission."' ■ , Folioe would specially report ou the matter. Cojomiiiio&er Weldon intimated that he would

never report favorably, as night licenses In tha suburbs would only encourage dram-drinking. The Chairman said the Court wa« not favorable to night licenses in anj case. , Applications ior bottle licenses were refused in the following cases : —Thomas Robson, Kensington ; Charles Pickett (fined for sly-grog selling), Ravensbonrne ; Peter Moyle, Richmond Hill, An application by Henry I ogan, for a publican s license at _ Blueskin, was refused, the Court having declined to entertain the application at the last meeting.

COMPLAINTS. Mr Haggitt brought under the notice of the Court the manner in which the police had warned certain publicans that complaints against the renewal of their licensi • would bo m_tde. Instead of stating the complaint to bo laid before the Licensing Court they merely served a notice that an objection to tlie renewal of license would be made. Me submitted that the comp aint should be specified.—The ('bait man sta< ed that section 28 equired that the ChiHF ('ommissioner of Police should furnish the Licensing Court with a report of the description and character of each licensed house, and a list of the persons frequenting them at ev. ry licensing mooting. The •'ourb wouH consider the. complaints, and if the licen e was found to have been guilty oi any gnos mi-conduct bis license would be foifcited. The Bench then considered the following com-

! idabits; James Insley, London Tavern.— ; Sergeint Anderson stated that about ten : minutes to 1 a m. on October 21, he heard a digj turbance in applicant’s house. Witness spoke to Insley, who ejected two men of bad character. This was the only occasion on which he had found fault with applicant.— I The Court expressed its unwillingness at this meeting to put an « nd to any license for any single act unless it was of a very aggravated nature. It must be home in mind, however, that a caution was given to this very house at the last quarterly meeting, and in dismissing the present case it must bo remembered that although the Court does not put an end to the license, the matter would come up again when ap ; lication for the renewal of the license was made, 't hey had not only to do their duty by protecting public morals, but also the respectable portion of licensed victuallers who carry on buiness m a proper way.—Mr Lewis defended. [Left sitting.]