LICENSING COMMITTEE.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2542, 1 June 1882, Page 3

LICENSING COMMITTEE.

OHBISTCHUBOH SOUTH. To day, at noon, the annual meeting of the licensing committee for Christchurch South eat to consider app!i;ations. Present—Mr B. J, S. Harman (chairman), Messrs R. Westenra, J. E. Parker, P. Cunningham, and O. A. Pritchard. Inspector Broham was present on behalf of the police. The twelve o’clock extension was not dealt with to-day. In accordance with the Act the applications for new licenses were taken first.

Mr Thomas appeared to support Mr J. W. Morton’s application for a new publican’s license, Colombo street and South Belt, signed by a number of residents. Mr Thomas suggested that an expression of opinion might be given by the Bench as to whether or not the proposed house would be a public convenience. Mr MoOonnel was instructed by some residents to oppose the application, The Bench declined to promise to grant a license in favor of a house not in existence. It would be understood that, in cases where houses were not already in existence, there would be no use in making an application. Mr Joyce, on beValf of Mr J. P. Oliver, applied for new wine license, Colombo street. Inspector Broham objected on the ground of insufficient accommodation, the premises being very small. Application granted, the Bench intimating that in future better accommodation would be expected. Mr Loughrey applied for a now wine license for Mr S. t-ohwariz, Colombo street. Granted. W* Thomas applied for a new publican’s licet.:r for Mr William Tombs, Barbadoos street. Tho house was built, and but trifling alterations would be necessary. The inspector mentioned that the accommodation of publichouses generally was not enlarged proportionately to the increase of population. The accommodation of existing houses should have to be increased or new licenses granted.— Application granted, the present accommodation, as shown on the plans, to be devoted to public convenience. Tho Bench intimated that those houses providing the best accommodation for the public, as distinguised from mere drinking places, would receive encouragement. Mr Maude applied for a transfer of publican’s license from J. Garland to T. J. Aiken, Railway Hotel, Manchester street. Aiken stated that ho had six lodgers in his hotel. In Easter week he had between forty and fifty lodgers.—Certificate of license to bo issued, subject Jto the cause of complaints in regard to the condition of the closets being removed. Should it be found that the hotel would be conducted as a drinking shop instead of as a hotel tho license might be forfeited.

Mr Thomas applied for a publican’s license on behalf of Mr F. Arenas’ Cafe de Paris. Cashel street. Twelve rooms were available for the general public. The Bench intimated that the polioefreport was very satisfactory. License granted on the understanding that the house be continued to be carried on as at present, as it was not clear that a departure from the existing system of conducting the house as a restaurant would be to public advantage. [This house had previously a license for beer and wine, and there is no provision under tho Act for a similar license.) Mr Thomas applied for a transfer of publican’s license from J. Blake to J. Carl, A 1 Hotel. License and transfer granted, the house to bo carried on as a hotel. Tho following applications far renewals were granted D, Bryant, Grosvonor Hotel (Mr Loughrey) ; Edw. Cookaon, City Hotel (Mr Thomas) ; George Collier, Royal George; J. Coker, “ Coker's” (Mr Loughrey) ; Elizabeth Fuchs, Wellington Hotel (Mr Xhomas) ; W. Qodso, Southern Hotel (Mr Loughrey) ; Jesse H. Hall, Eastern Hotel (Mr Loughrey); J. Hadfield, Langham (Mr Thomas) ; O. Klingonstoin, restaurant, Cashel street (Mr Joyce), now license to take place of wine and beer license; H. Keane. Scotch Stores (Mr Loughrey) ; J. Fox, Prince of Wales (Mr Loughrey); O. Knowsley, Queen’s (Mr Loughrey) ; O. Louisson, Terminus Hotel (Mr Thomas) ; W. H. Messenger, His Lordship’s Larder (Mr Loughrey), Mr Thomas opposing on behalf of a hotel-keeper in the neighbourhood, on the ground of insufficient number of rooms, and there being a number of hotels in the vicinity ; W. H. Orchard. Collins’ Hotel (Mr Fisher) ; R. Richardson, Empire (Mr Loughrey); Ed, Ravenbil^

Oaversham (Mr Loughrej), tender* being now out for a building to coat £3OOO ; 3. O. Shepherd, White Hart (Mr Thomas) ; T. B. Thompkins, Provincial (Mr Slater). _ . In regard to Ooker’e Hotel, the Bench inti-

mated that it would be a great advantage if more hotels conducted in a similar manner were in the city. The Southern Hotel was well conducted, but would probably presently require substantial improvements. The accommodation of thol/angham needed enlargement. Mr Thomas stated that a suite of rooms waa being constructed. In the case of Hlingenstein’s license, as little

prominence was to be given to the bar aa possible, the character of the bouse to be substantially maintained as a restaurant. Additions to Keane’s Hotel to be carried out without delay. The report as to the Prince of Wales was that it was " conducted fairly well.” In this connection the Bench drew attention to the impending

question which would ultimately bo presented of either increasing theaooommodation of hotels already in existence or of granting more licenses. The conduct of the Queen’s had been exceedingly good since Mr Knowsloy’g entering into possession. His Lordship’s Larder to be continued substantially as a restaurant, and additions to be made without delay. Mr Joyce applied for a transfer of license from M. McGovern to J. Barrett, Borough

Hotel. The house had originally been a very good one, and recently large additions of a substantial character in stone had been made, and the house would be, and in fact already was, one of the beet in Christchurch. Further additions of the same material, and after the same design, would be at once carried out. Barrett was very well known, yet nothing could be said affecting his character, either morally or as a business man in the capacity of a licensee. There was a charge, throe years back, against Barrett of having been in some way implic atcd in the matter of the affray which took place near his house. The Banch had, oirsequsntly, declined to renew the license in Barrett's name. Barrett courted the fullest inquiry by the police, and the police had instituted the fullest inquiry into the circumstances, but they could not find that ho was in any way implicated. He was prepared on oath to deny that hs had been implicated, and to state that he had done all in his power to prevent the riot from taking place. Birrett was discharged, thsre being no case whatever against him, and counsel said that it was full

time his client should be reinstated in possession of his license, the condition having been imposed by the Bench that ho should obtain a substitute. A great hardship to Barrett resulted j and, if ho was not guilty, a gross injustice was being committed in his being kept out of the management of his property from year to year on the merest suspicion. Even had circumstances been brought to light to oast grave suspicion upon Barrett, the punishment accruing had already been exceptionally severe ; nor was it ever intended to endow that tribunal with the power of inflicting so terrible a punishment, unless consequently upon the clearest proof of a grave public offence. Let the police be asked and let them prove it, if they can—whether Barrett hid ever done anything to merit so severe a punishment, tending almost to his ruin'. The minds of the police seemed to be impressed with some secret reasons. In Christ-

mas, 1879, the riot occurred, and in July, 1880, Barrett had applied for a transfer. McGovern had not entered immediately, because time had been occupied in a vain attempt to sell the house. Finding it impracticable to sell it, Barrett had lost no time in getting a substitute. More money wee being spent on that hotel than on any other house in the town. Already £7030 had been expended, and another £7OOO would be spent before its completion. Michael McGovern deposed that he did not reside in the house, nor had he himself been conducting the house. The Bench stated that, under clause 135, McGovern, by not himself conducting the house, or otherwise keeping within the provisions of that clause, had rendered himself liable to incur a forfeiture of license. The Bench, however, thought it likely that McGovern had not been aware of the state of the law

The Bench said they would first consider the granting of a renewal to MeGovocn, This was accordingly granted. The Bench then proceeded to consider the question of a transfer from McGovern to Barrett. They, equally with the former licensing committee, had no wish to pun'sh Barrett with undue seventy. On a former occasion the Bench, instead of forfeiting the license, had granted it, subject to a transfer being made. The present comm ttee were not satisfied that Barrett was a proper person to ooeupy the position of licensee. This point was alluded to only because the licensee must be a person approved by the Committee. Perhaps the application had better be withdrawn, otherwise Barrett might be subjected to a disability for three years. Mr Joyce applied for and obtained a fortnight’s adjournment, objections to be stated in writing, and counsel to be at liberty, if he shall think fit, to withdraw the application for a transfer. The Bench rose a few minutes after two o’clock.