WAITOA HOTEL.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 4983, 4 June 1926, Page 2

WAITOA HOTEL.

TWO PETITIONS THROWN OUT. COMMITTEE RESERVES DECISIONThe Ohinemuri Licensing Bench continued its sitting at the Courthouse. Paeroa, on Wednesday. The final application dealt wit was one from Mrs Mary Blakeley Montgomery, Auckland, for a license tor an hotel to be erected at Waitoa. Two largely signed memorials were filed, one from residents objecting to i). license and one from settlers advocating the granting of a license. A preference application was claimed. Mr G. Gilchrist (Te Aroha) appeared for the: residents who objected, a<nd Submitted that a preference application referred to premises only, and not to owners. After consultation with the; members of the commitee the chairman inimated that both the memorials would be. thrown out, and the application would be heard on its merits. Mr H. L. Cooney (Te Puke.) appeared for the applicant, and said that he was applying for a license for a new building. A certificate; of fitness had been filed, and the other documents were in order. There was a memorial against the granting of a license to which exception was taken because section 9i of the Act had not been complied with. The memorial did not come within section 109 in regal d to preference. Section 103 of the c showed that the memorial was so much waste paper, so far as the committee was, concerned. It was an insidious attack on the behalf of the Waitoa people to the. law. No reason had been advanced as to why o bjection was taken to the hotel. He asked that the memorial be withdrawn. Mr Gilchrist contended that there was nothing in the Act to compel the. memorialists to state reasons for objecting. He contended that under section 91 the committee was bound to accept the memorial. Section 88 also related to the presentation of the memorial, which, it was, contended,

was in order. The chairman (Mr J. H. Salmon S.M.) said it appeared that Mr Gil- ; christ was limited if the memorial was not to be a : ccepte;d. Mr Cooney pointed out that if Mr Gilchrist’s contention wa.s given effect to the committee would be usurping the functions of Parliament, because it would be necessary to reinstate a section of the Act which had since been deleted by later legislationMr Gilchrist took exception to the fact that a certificate had not been lodged within the prescribed time. Mr Cooney admitted the point and sought the indulgence of the Bench. The Bench said it? was prepared to waive the point. Formal proof was produced by the clerk to the committee showing title to certain sections of laud at Kaiangahake which ha,d been held continuously by the applicant, .since 1901.

Mrs Montgomery, the applicant, stated that she had been connected -with hotels in the goldfields for ovei 30 years. Mr G. L. Burmester produced plans of the proposed new building at Waitoa. Mr Cooney produced a map showing that main highways passed through Waitoa. Mr Gilchrist objected to the evidence. The chairman said that he was afraid Mr Gilchrist, had np> Ipcus stand in the matter,', and Mr Cooney was entitled to prove his case. L. E. Hobart, farmer, Ngarua, said that except ug. Paeroa, and Waihi he knew of no other .town larger than Waitoa, which was the natural centre of a prosperous dairying country. There was no accommodation house rt Waitoa, and from Matamata, to Pokeno he knew of no boardinghouse. Waitoa drew its trade from a radius of over ten miles.

Mr F. W. Walters pointed out that such a radius would take in Morrinsville on one side and Te Aroha on the other. It was not reasonable to suggest that people from .those towns would look on Waitoa as a business centre if a license was granted. In answer to Mr P. E. Brenaji witness said that there was nothing indicative of board and lodging being available at Waitoa. H. S. Joll .farmer, Wa.itoa, described the size of the township and the wealth of the country. A. J. Johnson also gave, similar evidence. The chairman repiai’ked tha.t there was a duplicating of evidence which was unnecessary. There was an anomaly in the section of the. Act which allowed Mr Cooney to give evidence whereas Mr Gilchrist was precluded from calling evidence on behalf of the objectors. At the request of Inspector Willis, Harold A. Kinniburgh, factory-hand, said that the Waitoa dried milk factory employed from 50 to 75 men. Ample accommodation! was provided for 36 married men, while there was a modern “bach” •for the single em-

ployees. On the question of law Mr Cooney said that it had been his duty to preps the claims for a license; The only application in the whole of .the district which had been opposed was the one for the third largest township in the; electorate. The wishes of the people were entitled to consideration, and he. suggested that the Bench would have to carefully weigh the 'facts before arriving at a decision. He stressed his claim to a preference application, and quoted numerous sections of the. Act in support of his claim.

The Bench retired fpr a Quarter of an hour. On returning to the Court the chairman announced that it was quite clear to the committee tha.t the applications were not ripe for the granting of licenses. It was proposed to adjourn the annual meeting to June 18, at 10 o’clock, when it was hoped to grant some licenses. In other cases a clear indication of the intention of the committee would be given.