RESTORATION OF LICENSES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 4982, 2 June 1926, Page 2

RESTORATION OF LICENSES.

OHINEMURI COMMITTEE MEETS Thirteen Applications Received. ADJOURNMENT TILL JUNE 18th.

The general feeling of expectancy and excitement that has prevailed since the carrying of restoraibn in the Ohinemuri electorate on November 4 la.st was carried further yesterday, when the first sitting of the Ohinemuri Licensing Committee was< held at the Courthouse* Paeroa. Long before the appointed hour of midday the body of the courtroom was crowded.

The number of licenses .that could be granted might be anything from seven to fifteen. Actually there were 17 applications involving 13 licenses submitted to the committee. In each case, with the exception of Karangahake, formal evidence was taken with the application and the decision of the committee was reserved pending the holding of the adjourned annual meeting, which is to take, plaice, towards the middle of this month. Until each building is completed a certificate stating that the premises comply with the Health Department’s, regulations, and a,1.50 from the Police Department, will not be available. Until these reports are received licenses will not be granted. The members iff the Ohinemuri Licensing Committee, which was elected on March 9 last, a,re : Messrs J. H. Salmon, S.M., chairman ; W. J. Towers, W. Marshall, P. E. Brenan, all of Paeroa ; F. W. Walters, Waitoa; and W. M. Wallnutt, Waihi. Mr P. H.‘ Wylde;, registrar of electors and returning officer, is clerk to the committee.

Inspector Willis and Senior-Ser-geant Mac Lean represented the Police Department, and Messi’s B. Franklin, chief, health inspector, Auckland, the Health Department. A welcome was extended to the Bench by Messrs Clendon and E. W. Porritt on behalf of the bar. The chairman, in acknowledging the welcome, said that he .appreciated the presence of so strong end learned a bar. The legislation did not provide for every position that would arise, and the Bench would welcome advice and assistance.

KEREPEEHI HOTEL. The first Application was that of Joseph Molloy, Auckland. Mr E. J. Clendon (Thames) appeared for the applicant, and said that the application was for a new house at Kerepeehi, the owners being Messrs Hancock and Co., Auckland, who were the owners of the old Mackaytown Hotel when no-license was carried. There had been almost a clamour for a licensed house, on the; Hauraki Plains, and a petition praying for a house at Kerepeehi had resulted in the securing of 213 signatui'ues of electors. Kerepeehi w'as an ideal township for an hotel owing tc. its central situation, the headquarters of the La,nds Drainage Department ; a resident constable was there, and it was an elevated and healthily situated township. Mr P. H. Wylde, registrar of electors for Ohinemuri, gave formal evidence, showing that Kerepeehi was situated within the Ohinemuri licensing district. Edwin BaU’ibal a.nd John Murdoch, both o? Kerepeehi, gave evidence pertaining to the obtaining of signatures asking for an hotel. The signatures of Maoris, Hindoos, or Austrians had not been taken.

M. A. Bartley, architect, Auckland, produced plans and specifications of the proposed hotel, which he stated would be modern and up-to-date in e.very respect. It could be completed and ready for license in three weeks’ time. The cost of the. building was £4009.

Joseph Molloy was called in person, but did not give evidence. The. chajrfiian said that the application could not be proceeded with because; there was no report from the Public Health Department. The application would therefore, be adjourned.

ROYAL’MAIL HOTEL. Mrs C. V. Crosby, Paeroa, widow of the late Mr George Crosby, applied for a license for premises to be erected and known. as the RoyaJ Mail. Hotel. Mr G. P. Finlay (Auckland) and Mr A. T. Jones (Paeroa) appeared for the applicant, and stated that the old Royal Mail Hotel history transcended even the; history of the district, although there, was no building existent to-day, but the land had been held since the eighties. There had never been a blemish on the license, during the long years. If was not expected that a,, license; would be granted right away, but, he proposed to show. that the new house would be a suitable one to be granted a license. Mrs C. V. Crosby gave evidence to the effect that she had held a license, at, the time no-license was carried. The Royal Mail license was the oldest in the electorate, having been held by an aunt, Mrs Mahoney, at the Puke before the Maoris would allow the white people to rea,ch Paeroa, In 1910 tlie hotel had been destroyed by fire, and the; circumstances at that time were such as not .to warrant reconstruction. A new house was to be erected in brick immediately, and the money was being found by the applicant. A lifetime’s experience of hotelkeeping would be brought into the new house. Mr G. A. Burmestew, aJchitect. Te Arolia, gave evidence that he hud prepared plans for .the Royal Mail Hotel. The plans (produced) were explained in detail. Mr A. T. Jones, solicitor, Paeroa, gave evidence as to the regularities observed in connection with advertising the application, which had been posted on the old Borough Council

buildings, being part of the hotel siteMr Finlay said that the applicant had been constrained to apply for a license, although no building actually existed. She should not be penalised because of the fire that had destroyed the premises!. He urged that the committee might, under the circumstaances, transgress and indicate tha,t an application would be grafted on the completion of the premises. Inspector Willis opposed any indication being ■ given that e license would be granted until the. premises were actually completed. Mr Finlay quoted authority to show that it was within the province of the committee to give an indication. Section 14 of the 1881 Act also provided for such circumstances. The chairman said that the committee would reserve its decision, but if it was possible at a later date the committee would give an indication such as would enable the applicant to go on with the building with a margin of safety, or otherwise.

CRITERION HOTEL. Lewis Emanuel Cassrels, one of the executors eff the late Asher Cassrels, the owner of the Criterion Hotel, Paeroa, at the time no-licemse was carried, applied for a license in respect to the same, premises. Mr E. W. Porritt appeared for the applicant- Outlining the case, he said that it was a moot point as to whether the Criterion was not the oldest hotel in the district. The late Mr Cassrels had been thq owner of the hotel since the first days of the goldfields. The building had been carried on as a licensed house up to the time of nc-license being brought in. Since 1909 it had been carried on continuously as a boardinghouse, and was recognised a.s a house by the; Commercial Travellers’ Association, Auckland Automobile Association, and the Public Service Association. Considerable structural improvements were being carried out at present, and no efforts were being spare;d to comply wilt the Act and to make the building thoroughly modern in every respept. Plans and specifications of the renovations and improvements to the building were put in by Mr Burmester, architect Decision was reserved.

COMMERCIAL HOTEL, PAEROA. Ernest Phillip Fathers applied for a license; for the Commercial Hotel, Paeroa, owned by Mrs Jane Coote at present and at the time. o¥ no-license being carried. Mr E. J. Clendon appeared for the applicant, and stated that Mrs Coote was 81 years of age, and she would not, be called, but Mr E. P. Fathers, who wa.s to be the. licensee, would represent he’’. The house had belonged lo the Ccote family for nearly 50 years, and they were still occupying it. During the 17 years of no-Jieense the appearance of the building had deteriorated somewhat, but renovations were being carried out. William C. Coote, bank mangaar, Matamata, stated that his father had died in 1914, and his mother was the sole executrix. The premises had been taken over about '5O years ago, during a part of which time Mes rs Campbell and Ehrenfiid had managed the hotel. Alterations and repovations costing £1250 were being carried out to the building. In answer to Mr Clendon’s claim lor preference for a license the chairman said that the claim had not been established.

Mr Clendon read from various sections of the 1910 Act in support b' the; claimf and contended that the committee should take a benevolent, view of the particular sections quoted. Ernest P. Fathers said that if a license was granted he intended to obtain a lease from Mrs Coote, and to personally manage the hotel as licensee.

Mr C. A. Potter, architect and builder, Matamata, explained .the plans showing what improvements were being carried out to the building. The work would be completed in about four weeks’ time.

The chairman said (hat the committee proposed to visit the various premises at the sitting of the. adjourned annual meeting, which would be in about a fortnight’s time. It was just possible that, the wooden fire escape would require to be reconstructed in iron. Decision would be reserved in the meantime.

ROB ROY HOTEL, WAIHI.

John Benjamin Weedon, Waihi, applied for a, license for the Rob Roy Hotel, Waihi, as present owner of the building. He; stated that the building was being renovated from cellar to roof, a preference license was claimed. Mr E. H. Northcroft objected to the license because; of the name df Rob Roy Cammei'cia,!. Hotel, which was, desirable in vie.w of another license being applied for the genuine Commercial Hotel at Waihi. This hotel had held the name “Commercial Hotel” for many yea,rs, whereas when Weedon’s buiding was held under license it. was known as the Rob Roy only. To Mr Northcroft the applicant said that he; had held the hotel tor five years, and could produce evidence to show that it had been known as the Rob Roy Commercial Hotel for many years. . The chairman suggested that the name might be altered to the Rob Roy Family Mid Commercial. Hotel, and Mr Northcroft’s applicant could then call his, house the Waihi Commercial Hotel. This was 'agreed upon.

Plans of the alterations were produced by Mr A> Williams, architect, Hamilton. Mr J. B. Seethe, Waihi, who appeared for the applicant, submitted legal points supporting his request for a preference license, and contended that Section II of the Act gave the committee power to grant a preference license to the present owner of premises that, had previously been licensed, irrespective, of who the owner was at that time. The chairman said that it was, desirable to hear the views df the Auckland members of the bar on the important question of preference, hnd he was hopeful of giving them an opportunity to submit their views on the question. I.t was desirable that the applications should be dealt with in the order on the list. Decision was reserved.

COMMERCIAL HOTEL. WAIHI. Henry D. M. Haszard, retired civil engineer, Wajhi, and John Kelly, publican, Thames, applied for a license for the Commercial Hotel, Waihi. Mr E. H. Northcroft, Auckland, who appeared for both applicants, explained that the property was owned by Mrs, Haszard at the present timehaving bought it from the estate of Tanner, who had owned it up to the time no-license, had been carried. A sale absolute had been made from Mrs Haszard to Kelly which, in effect, wlas contingent upon a license being granted. The license would be held by Kelly, but an application had been made on behalf of Haszard also, so as to safeguard the claim for a license.

Evidence was given as to the improvements being carried Out. In support of a preference application Mr Northcroft submitted two points for consideration, namely, that Mrs Haszard was entitled to preference as owner and Kelly as licensee at the; time no-license came into force. Decision was reserved.

GOLDEN CROSS HOTEL. Applications for a. license were received from Arthur kerr, hotelkeeper, Hikuta.ia, and Robert; Henry Webber, hotel manager, Auckland, in respect to the Golden Gross Hotel, Waihi. Mr R. McVeagh appeared for both applicants, and explained that a preference application for a license was sought on three grounds, namely, on account of ownership by Hancock and Co. at the time no-license .was carried ; also on account of Kerr being a. license-holder at the time no-license was carried; and on account of Messrs L. D. Nathan, Ltd., being owners at the time of no-license being carried. The general improvements being carried out we;re detailed. Mr McVeagh explained that Mr Kerr was intended to be the licensee, but in the event of his application failing Webber would become the. licensee. Decision was reserved.

PAEROA HOTEL. Messrs L. D. Nathan, Ltd., and Hancock and Co. (Mr Northcroft), being owners of the property at the time no-license was carried, applied for a license for Edmund William Gibson Smith, hotelkeeper, Auckland. Mr Northcroft stated that a preference license, was sought. The house was not an old one, and was situated in a good locality. Evidence was given concerning improvements. The hotel would be modern and thoroughly up-to-date, and the furniture alone, would cost about £2OOO. Mr E. W. G. Smith gave evidence as to his qualifications as an hotel manager. Decision was reserved. As the Court Is still sitting, the remaining applications* apd also addresses by counsel, will, appear in dur next issue.