LICENSING COURT.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 931, 19 June 1877, Page 2

LICENSING COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH. ADJOURNED sitting. Tuesday, June 19. (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M., chairman, and H. J. Tancred and R. J. S. Harman, Esqrs., commissioners.) NEW HOTEL.

Mr J. Ollivier said that before the Court commenced business he desired to present a numerously signed petition from residents in Phillipstown and Ferry road against a license being granted to Mr T. D. Jones for a house, which it was said he intended building in that neighbourhood. A statement had been made by the applicant at the last sitting of the Court, about the principal property owners in the district being in favor of the application. This was positively opposed to fact, as was shown by the document he presented, which had been numerously signed in a very short time, as it was understood by that that the license was conditionally granted, on the understanding that no opposition was made when the license was applied for. Witli the exception of two married women, all the names on the petition were those of householders, and the object in presenting it now was to prevent Mr Jones going to the expense of putting up a house in the hope that he would obtain a license without opposition. The residents in the whole of Phillipstown and neighborhood objected to any house being erected in the thickly populated part of that district. The Chairman told Mr Ollivier that the Court qualified the remarks to the applicant at the time, and informed him that the license might be granted in tue event of there being no opposition when the application was made. HOTEL LICENSES. The adjourned application for a license for the Sumner Hotel was considered. Mr Joynt appeared to support the application. The Chairman said that for some little time the provision for the wants of visitors was very meagre indeed, and related his experiences when visiting the house with a friend on one occasion. Eventually, they were compelled to be satisfied with three slices of bread on a cheese plate, without any other refreshment. The bar was also very bad. Mr Joynt explained that the whole of this laxity was caused by the unpleasantness of a relation who was resident in the house at the time, but had entirely relinquished his claim. Inspector Buckley told the Bench that no urinal was provided at the hotel. Mr Jovnt said he would advise his client that everything that was required would at once have to be attended to. The Chairman said the Court would grant the license on the understanding that the promise given by counsel would be kept, and that this would be understood, and also that the house would have to be well found in future. If it were reported at the next sitting that this was not the case the license would be refused. License granted. Mr Kirkwood applied for a renewal of his license of the Royal Hotel, Oxford terrace. Mr Thomas appeared for the applicant, and said that repairs had been and were now being carried out at the hotel. Inspector Buckley said that when he visited the house the previous day the roof, which had been leaking, was under repair. The chairman said that 1 from his own observation he knew that the house was kept in a dirty state, and the attendant, who on that occasion answered the door, was the dirtiest object of the lot. After advising the applicant to be more extravagant in the use of soap and water, as if he did not lie would lose Ins license at the next annual meeting, the license was granted; Mr Thomas observing that as to permanent repair of the hotel, the applicant, who only held a lease for two years, would have to confer with his landlord. George Rogers, of the St. George and Dragon Hotel, Templeton, applied for his license. Mr Thomas appeared to support the application. There had been two convictions for drunkenness against applicant during visits in town, but as he received a good character from several residents in the neighbourhood of his hotel, and Inspector Buckley said the house was very clearly kept, the license was granted on the understanding that no further record of drunkenness must be added to the sheet by applicant. urinals. Inspector Buckley told the Bench that the following holders of licenses had not urinals or proper provision made: — William Atkinson, Talbot Hotel, Yaldhurst; J. Boot, Christchurch, wine and beer ; John Baylee, Criterion Hotel, who had however material on the ground to erect one; Joseph Fitzroy, Marine Hotel, Sumner; J. M. Fitzgerald, wine and beer; Alfred Gee, wine and beer; Henry Garland, White Horse, Christchurch, but had a urinal in course of erection; Wm. Letford, wine and beer; Eobt. Little, Ellesmere Arms, Tai Tapu ,• _ C. E. Paget, wine and beer; J. Paynton, wine and beer; Geo. Rogers, St. George and Dragon, Templeton, urinal required roofing ; Mary G. Ride, Sumner ; Wm. Savage, Scotch Stores, urinal not of the proper kind nor sufficiently convenient; D. Sutherland, J unction Hotel, Halswell; Samuel Trcleaven, Bridge Inn, North road. The Chairman said that if full provision had not been’made by these licensees before next quarterly meeting the Court would suspend their licenses. The Court then rose.

LYTTELTON,

Tuesday, June 19

[Before W. Donald, Escp, chairman, and H. R. Webb, T. H. Potts, and J. T. Rouse, Esqs., Commissioners.]

LICENSES GRANTED

The licenses of John S. Cameron, for the Mitre Hotel; Thomas Bailey, of the Canterbury Hotel; and John McQ.uilkin, of the Railway Hotel, which had been adjourned for consideration to this meeting were all granted. The l, j>ench addressed the licensees at some length, stating that for the future the police

were instructed to endorse all convictions on the back of the different licenses, which, woidd have to be produced at any subsequent summons, and that on the annual licensing day these convictions would be most seriously considered, and probably the renewal of the license of such house would not be granted The practice of allowing gambling in a licensed house was also strongly spoken against, and also allowing billiards to be played after the hour of closing. The Bench further stated that should it be proved that any publican had either supplied adulterated liquor, or allowed drink to be served to anyone in an intoxicated state, the heaviest penalty allowed by the law would be inflicted.