LICENSING COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1968, 15 June 1880, Page 2

LICENSING COURT.

CHBI3TOHTJROH. Tuesday, June 16, [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., Chairman ; G. L. Lee and R, J. S. Harman, Esqs,, Commissioners.] The annual meeting of the Bench of Licensing Commissioners for the Christchurch district was hold yesterday, at noon. NEW APPLICATIONS. Henry Drummond applied for a license for a new hotel at the corner of Armagh street and Haast street. Mr Thomas appeared in support of the application ; Mr Stringer for objectors. The Chairman said that with the prospect of a new Act being passed, the Bench did not feel disposed to grant any new licenses. Mr Thomas pointed out that the effect would be that no new licenses could be granted for twelve months. The Bench did not think that was for them to consier. They had looked on the list of new applications and did not think any were sufficiently pressing to be excepted from the decision. The above decison was understood to apply to the remaining applications for new licenses. The applications for renewal were then taken. Mr Thomas said he appeared generally on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers’ Association.

The following were granted :—General — W. H. Porter, Shades ; H. Allen, Golden Age ; W. Savage, Scotch Stores. Renewal of hotel licences were granted as follows:

Town Hotels.—C. Aymes, Papanui Hotel, Papanui; J. Barlow, Britannia, Victoria street; J. Baylee, Koval, Oxford terrace; G. Beatty, Palace, Gloucester street ; W. J. Baugh, Collins’, Hereford street; W. H. Bennett, Garrick, Colombo street; K. Belgrave, Crown, Montreal street ; W. T. Berti, Foresters’, Oxford terrace ; F. O. Bowler, Waltham Arms, Waltham; J. Blake, Al, Cashel street; D. Bryant, Qrosvenor, Madras street; J. E. Coker, Coker’s, Manchester street ; Geo. Collier, Koyal George, St. Asaph street; W. A. Collier, White Swan, Durham street; Josh. Dann, Oxford, Colombo street; O. Deal, Rotherfield, Cashel street; J. Fox, Prince of Wales, Colombo street; J. Franks, Talbot, Yaldhurst; E. Fuchs,Wellington, Tuam street; G. W. Garland, Railway, Manchester street; H. Garland, White Horse, Montreal street; W. Qodso, Southern, Madras street; H. J. Haddrell, Market, Colombo street; Jesse Hall, Eastern, Cashel street east ; D. W. Hamilton, New Brighton, New Brighton ; J. A. Hansmann, Feathers, Addington; E. Hiorns, Central, Colombo street ; R. P. Hill, British. Oxford terrace ; J. Hirst, Caledonian, Caledonian road; J. Johnston, Kingston, Colombo street; W. H. Kiddy, Golden Fleece, Colombo street; O. Lewis, Riccarton, Riccarton road; C. Louisson, Terminus, Manchester street; M. Martin, Black Horse, Lincoln road; J. Major, Springston Hotel, Springston; J. Morling, Victorian, Colombo street; W. H. Oram, City, Colombo street; T. A. W. Parsons, Gladstone, Durham street; J. Patterson, Marine, Sumner; Geo. Plummer, Carlton, Papanui road; M. J. Piper, Wharf, Woolston ; E. Ravenhill, Oaversham, Lower High street; R. Richardson, Empire, High street; W. Seabright, Zetland, Cashel street; A. Stenning, Junction, Victoria street; W. E. Smith, Queen’s, Cashel street; T. B. Tompkins, Provincial, Cashel street; J. Toovey, Star and Garter, Oxford terrace; S. Treleaven, Bridge Inn, North road ; R. Wallace, Criterion, Gloucester street; J. 8. Wagner, Clarendon, Oxford terrace; J. Wild, Sawyers’ Arms, Papanui, COtJKTBY HOTELS. J. W. Anderson, Prebbleton, Prebbleton ; R. Fenton, Heathoote Arms, Heathcote ; G. Hutchins, Wheat Sheaf, Sband’s track ; W. James, Selwyn Bridge, Selwyn; Joseph Judge, Ellesmere Arms, Halswell; T. Mullins, junr.. Junction, Lincoln road; George Simmonds, George and Dragon, Templeton ; W. T. Smythe, Rolleston, Rolleston ; Henry Smith, Courtenay Arms, North road } J. H. Sluis, Perthshire, Lincoln; W. C. Webb, Bush Inn, Riccerton. WINS AND BBSS LICENSES. J. E. Bashford, Colombo street; J. Boot, High street; A. Gee, Gee’s, Colombo street; J. Uiorn, Suffolk Restaurant, Armagh street; O. Klingenstein, Provincial Larder, Cashel street; G. P. Kissell, South road, Templeton ; W. H. Messenger, His Lordship’s, Lichfield street; J. Paynton, The Bower, New Brighton; M. A. Rule, Cave Rock House. Sumner; W. Skinner, Grand Cafe Francais, Cashel street. In the case of Mr E. Brinkman, who applied for a wine and beer license for his boarding-hoase in Peterborough street, the police reported that the house was kept in a dirty condition. The Bench pointed out that in a house of its description cleanliness should bo attended to as much as anything. The applicant said the house had been renovated since the inspection. The license was granted, subject to the house being kept quite olean. An application from Mr Vaughan for a renewal, or conformation of renewal at the quarterly meeting, was reported on unfavorably, and the Court decided to adjourn its consideration for a fortnight to enable the present licensee to effect a transfer of the license. Certain cases were held over, to which objections had bean given notice of, and were as follows : mobton’s hotel. With regard to Mr Morton’s application, the police had laid an information against the applicant for permitting gambling. Mr Morton said it was not gambling in the common acceptation of the form, being simply, “ A shilling in and the winner shouts.” As a case was pending, which any evidence taken now would affect, it was resolved to adjourn the application for a fortnight, Mr Sheppard’s application was postponed on similar grounds to the above. ALBION HOTEL. J. Carpenter was the applicant, for whom appeared Mr Thomas. An objection was entered by the police, on the ground that gambling hod been once allowed in the house, and the house was ke pt open during prohibited hours on another occasion. The Bench administered a caution, and granted the license. baebbtt’b hotel, Mr J. Barrett applied for a license for the Borough Hotel, Manchester street. A petition of great length against granting the license had been lodged in the Court. Mr Joynt pointed out that, according to the law on the subject, the petition mutt be verified on oath before the Court in the presence of those whose signatures were attached. The 23rd and 24th sections of the Act of 1873 most be complied with before the petition could ho received, and he contended that it did not comply with the Act at all. There

The case was then proceeded with. Mr Joynt stated that he should call the applicant to disprove the assertion that he had been privy to the disturbance on the day in question. He should also bring other evidence to show that he had, on finding a disposition to rowdyism on the part of men in his house, endeavored to maintain the peace. He should also produce a numerously signed petition favourable to the application. Mr Barrett had been a licensee in Christchurch for five years, and his conduct during that time had been exceptionally gcod. He hoped the Bench, alter hearing the evidence, would not decide to punish Mr Barrett in the way they would be entitled to if it were proved that he had been a party to the riot. It seemed, from the grounds submitted by the Bench, that they thought ho could have quelled the disturbance. Mr Mellish did not think Mr Joynt was entitled to put that interpretation on it. But they would narrow it down to this, that the Bench were of opinion, at present,, that he (Barrett) did know of the affair in sufficient time to prevent the riot taking place. Mr Joynt said he hoped to be able to prove to the contrary. He then called John Barrett, who stated that he had been nearly five years proprietor of the Borough Hotel, and had only once received a complaint. Remembered last Boxing Day. Knew all the men then stopping in his house but one or two. On the morning in question the Orange procession was coming along early in the morning. Ha first saw it from one of b’S windows. Shortly after he went down, and came to the back door leading to the yard and saw four or five men standing in the yard. He told them to put down the pick handles, sajing the procession had, as much right to walk as they had, and ho told them they would be the ruin of him. Shortly after, there being some of the men outside, there was a rush, and the whole matter took place quicker than it could be described. Knew nothing about the affair the night previous. Knew about the procession but had no suspicion that there was to be this row. He never in his life had a feeling of animosity against any man on account of his religions belief.

The Bench—Were you ever concerned in any such offence on the West Coast ? Witness —I was fined £2O, but not for anything of that sort. The Bench—What were you fined for ? The Witness—l was fined £2O for walking in a procession, before Judge Richmond in 1858.

By Mr Joynt—l had no suspicion that there was to be a disturbance. I can sweer that before my Qod. Immediately the row commenced I sent for the priest, thinking he might put a stop to it, and I told Mr Brougham, the superintendent of police, that I would giro him every assistance in my power. Patrick Gallagher was then called. He deposed that he was living at the Borough Hotel at the time of the riot. He was intimate with several of the men there, but never had a hint of what was going on, and knew nothing of the row till it commenced. Never heard M!r Barrett say anything about the matter.

By Mr Scott—l went out to the door to look at the procession. I did not look at it. Ido not know why. I came down to breakfast about Bor 9 o’clock. I looked through the back door, but do not remember seeing any men in the yard. I saw Barrett at the back door, and afterwards with Mr Broham. I do not recollect how long a time had elapsed between my first seeing him, and when I saw him with Mr Broham.

By the Court —It was about two or three minutes after I first saw Barrett go out to the back door that the row commenced. 1 heard the music of the procession when Barrett went out. The procession was not then passed Cunningham’s comer. The breakfast room looked out into Manchester street. I breakfasted there.

John Gilder said he was residing at Barrett’s at the time of the disturbance. Knew a good many of those who engaged in it. Never knew anything about the disturbance until the procession came along. Witness was a Catholic. It was before nine o’clock when be came down to breakfast. Afterwards he went out to the yard. While ho stood there he heard the baud. Some men were in the yard with pick handles in their hands. Mr Barrett came out and asked them what they were going to do, and they replied, “We are going to stop the procession,” Ho said the procession had a perfect right to walk. Ha also asked how they dare interfere with the pick handles, which were his property. With that the men rushed out into the street, and the row commenced. Barrett seemed anxious that they should not go, but he could not stop them. Among the men were Hanley,’ Mclvey and Oaddihy. He could not say where these men were when Barrett came out. Would be positive that Cuddihy was in the yard when Barrett came out. He had been iu the street and came back.

By Mr Scott—Oould not say how many men were in the yard. About nine or ten had pick handles; there were more men who had no pick handles. I do not know what Barrett did after the men rnshed into the street. Saw no beer in the yard. By the Bench —I used to spend my erenings in the hotel. If there had been any speaking about the affair previously, I think I should have heard it. I saw two or three men in the yard who were not lodgers at Barrett’s. Charles Q-ourlay deposed that he had been brought up at the E.M. Court on suspicion of being connected with the disturbance, and wag dismissed. Ho had not heard anything about the row before it took place. Saw Barrett come into one of the rooms after the row commenced, saying to his wife, “ I am ruined ; those fellows have attacked the Orange procession.” Mr Scott cross-examined the witness. Michael Malone deposed that he was liiing at Barrett’s Hoi el on Boring Day, and that he had heard Mr Barrett try to prevent the row. This witness was rather involved, and Mr Joynt did not trouble him after putting a few questions. Fitzgerald said ho spoke to Mr Barrett at the front door, and asked him what was going on (as he had seen the men excited about the place), and Barrett answered that the men were going to assault the procession, that he had tried to prevent them but failed. He (witness) really believed that Barrett had endeavoured to stop the men, judging from the expression of his face at the time. He could not swear as to whether any of the men were lodgers. Mr Joynt asked whether the Bench would like to hear the evidence of Inspector O’Donnell os to Barrett’s character. Mr Mellish said he had no objection to say that, since he had known Mr Barrett, ho had conducted his house well, Mr Joynt then submitted a memorial on Barrett’s behalf, and which, ha pointed out, boro the signatures of a number of influential and respectable parsons. [Left sitting.}