MORRINSVILLE LICENSE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5143, 24 June 1927, Page 3

MORRINSVILLE LICENSE.

CONSIDERATION BY COMMITTEE. DECISION RESERVED TILL JUNE 30 Considerable interest was taken in the adjourned annual meeting of_the Ohinemuri Licensing Committee which 'was continued at the Pajeroa Courthouse on Wednesday. Through--out the! day the building was crowded witnesses and interested spectators. The chairman of the Committee/ F. W. Platts, S.M., presided fever Msesrs W. J. Towers, W. Marsh&ll F. W. Walters, P. E. Brentin, W. M. Wallnutt, apd P. H. Wde (clerk). /The business before the meeting •-''was the application, previously adjourned from June 6, of Thomas Anderson for a publican’s license foi new premises, to be known as the Morrinsville Hotel situated on the corner of Avenue and Hamilton roads, Morrinsville, on election by Mrs Maiy Blackley Montgomery. Mr R. McVeagh appeared in support of the application ; Messrs W. R. Tuck (Auckland) for the first memorialists, W. Johnstone and 17 others; R. PTowle (Auckland) and A. Needham (Morrinsville) for.the second memorialists, J. Palmer and 14 others , E. McGregor (Morrinsville) for the third memorialists, A. G. Scrivener and ot hers. Mr Towle formally objected to the assignment of tie license , to Mrs Montgomery on the grounds o f a. preferential claim ,for a license. He contended that there was no machinery in the Act to allow of such an application to be pursued. Mr Tuck submitted that section 30 of the 1910 Act now applied, and contended that no fresh applications could be granted by the existing Committee. There was no increase of population, as provided for under section 144 of the Act. In opening the. case for the applicant Mr McVeagh explained that the application arose out of the return of restoration- to Ohinemuri. At the time of no-license being carried in 1908 Mrs Montgomery held a publican’s license at Karangahake. The application was -made under section 10 of the Act, and he proceeded to" explain the meaning of that section, and also sections 84 to 105, each of which had a bearing on the application. It was admitted that section 91 did not apply to the application. An applicatiori for a license after the carrying of restoration was entitled to a different consideration to one where the Act with regard to applications had been administered continuously. The hotel itself was completed, and was fully furnished. The situation, of the hotel was such that all the traffic on the main highway would pass'the door.. It was in the centre, of a growing district, and also one that was expanding. It was contended that the existing hotel at Morrinsville was becoming insufficient for the reasonable needs of the public. Views of extremists. should not regarded, but rather the wishes of the people should be given effect to. P. H. Wylde, returning officer and clerk for the Ohinemuri licensing district, stated that there were 7637 electors on the roll at the time of carrying restoration, and ten publicans’ licenses had been granted. The Tramway Hotel license at Karangahake at the time no-license was carried was held by the- trustees of the late W. S. Montgomery’s estate. Since that time certain transfers of land at Karangahake had been made to Mrs M. B. Montgomery. In reply, to Mr McGregor Mr Wylde said that there were < 15 licensed houses in existence in Ohinemuri at the time pf the carrying of no-licetnse. G. L. Burmester, architect, produced plans and specifications of the new hotel, which, he stated, had cost about £6OOO exclusive of the cost of the site. The furnishings had cost between £lOOO and £l5OO. The land on which the-' buiidiqg was erected was four acres in extent. The drainage arrangements had been approved of by the Health Department. To Mr Towle witness said that the building w,as connected to the Morrinsville Borough water, supply, and there was a good fall for drainage-. William Montgomery said that he and his brother were the owners of the site on which the building waserected, and he- produced probate of his father’s will. The four acres of land had cost £l5OO and it was intended to use the whole area in connection with the hotel. He submitted that there was need for increased hotel accommodation in and around Morrinsville, and the hotel was adsituated to meet the needs of the travelling public. To Mr Towle witness said that the contract price for \ the hotel was £5600. The object of the hotel was no more to serve the residents of Morrinsville than it was to ser.ve the travelling public. Anderson, who was applying as licensee, was a brother-in-law, and would act as manager for witness and his brother. To Mr Tuck witness said he realised that ha.d application- been made for a license within the borough of Morrinsville it would not have been granted. The idea of the application for the new hotel was to serve the needs of Ohinemuri as well as Morrinsville. To Mr. McGregor witness admitted that he and his brother had taken an ■option over an area of land in the borough of Morrinsville, but it was for the purpose of erecting a block of shops. He was not interested in his mother’s application for a licence for premises to be erected at Waitoa last year. W. R. Lowry, chairman of the Piako County Council said that he had an extensive acquaintance with the district in which the new hotel was erected. He detailed the volume of traffic that traversed the roads past the hotel which on one day this winter totalled 350 vehicles. It was reasonable to suggest that that number would be considerably greater, ■during the summer months. There was a weekly stock sale at Morrinsville Which was' one of the most important sales in the Waikato, and was largely attended. Morrinsville was an important railway junction,

and on account of thejjrowth of traffic the Railway Department wqs considering the removal of the station out of the town to a point near where the new hotel stood. An additional hotel in or near Morrinsville was required, and was most desirable. To Mr. McGregor witness said that the new hotel was about half a mile from the Morrinsville post office. The volume of traffic past the new hotel and one that had been suggested at Waitoa would be about the- same. His reason for favouring the granting of the license was because it was desirable that the travelling public should be adequately catered for, and also because- he did not believe in the monopoly of a license.

William C. Dickinson, Morrinsville, detailed a traffic tally he had taken past the new hotel over different periods. He was of the opinion that one hotel at Morrinsville- was not sufficient. He had been licensee of the Nottingham Castle Hotel at Morrinsville for over five years, and during that time frequently had to re-fuse the public .accommodation. The fact that the new hotel was about half a mile outside the borough would make little difference, as people would go where- they were best treated.

Joseph H. Boles, a Morrinsville resident for eight years, gave it as his opinion that an additional hotel in or near Morrinsville was desirable. To Mr McGregor witness admitted that he had sold the. hotel site- to the Montgomerys. Commercial travellers would prefer the quietness of an hotel situated outside a borough. To Mr Tuck witness said he supposed that the new hotel would have value as a boarding establishment, but obviously it would have additional value if it was permitted to sell alcoholic liquors.

G: T. Irvine, farmer, Morrinsville, gave- evidence as to the closer settlement qnd increased population in the Morrinsville district. He also gave details of the increased traffic, and stated that the accommodation in the borough was insufficient, and a new hotel was necessary. He knew of a number of people visiting Morrinsville who had to secure private accommodation.

J. F. Mayn, Patetonga, said he attended cattle sales frequently at Morrinsville, and was of the opinion that another hotel there was desirable- He did not agree with monopolies of licenses, and thought that two hotels at Morrinsville would give better and more/ convenient service on account of the competition. C. M. G-. McDavitt, solicitor, Morrinsville tendered further evidence on the growth of the borough and district, and also in regard to the motor traffic. He thought that there was a. reasonable need for an additional hotel. ’ To Mr Towle witness said that the new hotel .was conveniently situated to the borough, and also for the travelling public. To Mr McGregor witness said that an hotel at Waitoa would not serve the needs so well as the new Morrinsville hotel. EVIDENCE FOR OPPOSITION. In opening for the opposition to the granting of the license Mr fuck said that his chief point was that section 11 of the Licensing Amendment Act, 1910; imposed an obligation on tile Committee to make grants in respect of restoration and grants inthe discharge of its functions after restoration had been effected. The issue of liceiises ha.d a particular bearing on the first annual meeting of the committee. The provisions of sub-section 1 and the provisions of sub-sections 2 and 3 of section 11 of the 1910 Act applied only to grants made in respect of restoration. He considered that the only construction of section 11 that would satisfy the language of the Statute was that all grants by way of restoration must be made at the first annual meeting. A further proposition to be considered was that a construction which 'would permit the continuance of the processes of restoration beyond -the first annual meeting would be repugnant to the provisions of the Statute-, and practically to the provisions in respect to alteration of boundaries. Finally, ‘he contended that all grants made after the first annual meeting, other than grants made pursuant to section 144 of the 1908 Act, were subject to the provisions of section 30 of the 1910 Act. Certain sections were applicable, but again, obviously, there were negativing sections to be considered. Ten licenses had already been granted, and on the population basis five licenses, were still afloat. It was not reasonable to think and contrary to section 91c of the Act, that the Committee could drop one or more of those five licenses at will, or where it pleased. If that was permissible the committee would be adopting two separate systems, which, of course, was absurd. The granting of any license after the first annual meeting could ,not be done consistently with the principal Act, and would be repugnant to the general purview of the Statutes. Then a restored district would become unique in regard to the Act. Section 12 provided for an adjustment between licensed and no-licensed districts, but did not provide for the granting of licenses in a district where restoration was already in- effect.

On resuming after the luncheon, adjournment Mr McGregor -submitted certain fundamental principles of law dealing with the issue of licenses as governed by sections 70, 119, and 140 of the Act. The vote in the Ohinemuri electorate had been that restoration should be restored and not that new licenses should be granted. That ftjet opened up a large question. The local bodies were entitled to have their revenue restored to them. Tiiose who held licenses in 1908 were entitled to have those licenses restored and those who desired restoration were entitled to have their wishes given effect to. There was, however, nothing to show that new licenses in a new part of the district should be granted. Licenses were granted by the Committee but onlyafter such licenses had been restored by the people. Section 11 was of vital importance in connection with the application under review. It was submitted that the owner of original licensed premises could Only claim

preference provided that the license was to be housed in those original premises. Evidence of witnesses, for the application had shown clearly that the present applicant was not the owper of licensed premises in 1908. Restoration actually came into effect on February 5, 1926, and the license- must be applied for at the first annual meeting. Various sections in the Act were quoted in support of the contention. There was a difference between a license that had lapsed and one that had expired. The license applied for had in effect lapsed, as provided for in sections 7 to 12 of the main Act, and in section 32 of the amended Act. It was submitted that the committee had no power to grapt a new license. It was worthy of note that only three electors of the Ohinemuri electorate had come forward in support of the application, and those witnesses’ chief reasons for the granting of a license, were because of monoply.

William Johnstone, joiner, Morrinsville said that he -had lived in the borough for eleven years. In that time eleven new houses had gone up in that part of the Ohinemuri electorate, and ten within’' the borough in the vicinity of the new hotel. The new hotel was about half a mile from any of the houses shown on the plan produced. Witness said that he failed to see how an hotel could do any good where it was. To Mr McVeagh witness admitted he was a prohibitionist, and would like to see all hotels closed down.

J. W. Oates, land agent, Morrinsville, said that he- could not see tha.t there was any need for the new hotel.

To Mr McVeagh witness said that he was a prohibitiohist, and considered that every licensed house was “a blemish on the neighbourhood.” George Howie, retired farmer, Morrinsville, and an ex-Mayor, said that the end of the town where the new hotel was built was the “dead end” of the borough and witness would not live in the locality for a £lOOO a year. The hotel was too far away from the town to do the place much good. Witness could not see how a fair living could be made- at the new hotel. There was adequate accommodation for travellers in the borough, and the business portion of the town’ had not shown any appreciable increase during the past six years. He was not a Henry J. Clifford, farmer, Morrinsville, said he had lived in the district 43 years, and did not think the new hotel was warranted or would do much good.

To Mr McVeagh witness admitted that so far as the travelling public was concerned the hotel would be a

convenience. E. E. Sage, Methodist minister, Morrinsville, gave evidence of a, resolution passed by his church people protesting against the granting of a license.

Mr McVeagh objected to the evidence as hearsay.

The chairman consulted his committee and then announced that the Committee had decided to hear the evidence under section 60, sub-section j-

Evidence was given on similar lines by the Rev. J. H. Starnes (Presbyterian) and the Rev. West (Baptist), of Morrinsville.

In carrying on the case for the opposition Mr R. P. Towle submitted figures of the voting at the last election and quoted Tahuna Road 49 for restoration, 85 for no-license ; Tatuanui, 69 for and 90 against; Piako, 15 for apd 34 against; Motumaoho, 63 for and 39 against; the total showing 248 in favour of no-license, as. against 196 for restoration. Also, in the Morrinsville borough there had been a laige majority for no-license. Such figures had to be taken as indicating the people’s wishes, and as such the committee would have to consider seriously the granting of a. license in an area where it would be so unwelcome. Further, the granting of the license would be of no use to the electorate. There was also the indication given by the chairman that the applicant had no preferential cl'a Im for a license. The chairman said that that was his cpinion, but an opposite view had been held by Mr J- H. Salmon, S.M., the former chairman.

Continuing, Mr Towle said that there could be no preferential cla.im, as there was only one application and the right was not assignable under the circumstances. Several authorities were quoted with reference to the contention. Great discretionary powers were given the Committee-, but it was npt compelled to gran# 4ny particular-' license. An attempt was being made to drive through the four corners of the Licensing Act in asking for a license for the new hotel. The Committee was there to exercise its po.wers on behalf of the people of ’Ohinemuri and not to oppose the wishes of people in the Tauranga electorate. It was also to be noted that the applicant had had the effrontery to call the hotel the Morrinsville Hotel. No doubt it was thought that Morrinsville would welcome an opportunity to extend the boundaries of the; borough so as to take in the new hotel./ It would be for the. committee to consider only what were the needs of the Ohinemuri electorate when granting the license. In view of the eliminating of the Ohinemuri electorate the Committee would need to use every discretion in considering the application. MR McVEAGH TN REPLY. In reply Mr McVeagh said that the Committee should not consider the needs of Ohinemuri only, but should take a very broad outlook on the application. The Licensing Act was intended primarily to provide for and control the sale of alcoholic liquor, and although there might be- a lot said, in favour of Morrinsville’s boardinghouses, such places did not cater for liquid refreshment for those who desired it and were- prepared to pay for it. There was not a single syllable in the whole of the Licensing Act to say that licenses should be issued within any particular district <|d.v. Mr McVeagh dealt at length with the various points raised by counsel for the opposition interests. Dealing with the boundary question, he said

that there was nothing in the Act to prohibit the issue of a license to premises adjoining or next-door to another electorate provided that it was not issuing a license, to be housed in a no-license area. It was not material to consider whether a preference was assignable, although the point had been raised by the oppoosing interests. It was reasonable, however, to suggest that if a licensee died that license should be assigned to the executors, or, in a licensee becoming bankrupt, it was to be expected that the license should be assigned to the creditors. Dealing with section 30 of the 1910 Act, which had been relied on so strongly by Mi Tuck Mr McVeagh contended that it applied to districts which had only been continuously in operation, and did not apply to districts where restoration liad been brought about. A little over an hour was occupied by Mr McVeagh in propounding the legal aspect of the application. Discoursing on the evidence of the persons opposed to the application, Mr McVeagh said that there- had been one hotel in Morrinsville for nearly 43 years. Yet evidence showed that the advancement and progress of the borough and district which liad been enjoyed was surely sufficient warranty for the provision of a second hotel in the district, apart fro.m the evidence of the increasing volume of motor traffic, all of which was in favour of granting the application. Mr McVeagh criticised various opposing counsels’ argument and quoted numerous other sections qnd authorities in support of the application, after which he said that he would leave the matter in the hands of the Committee, on whose judgment he would rely.

The committee thereupon- retired to consider its decision. After a retirement of about ten minutes the Conuntitee returned and the chairman announced th/t owing to thelateness of the ‘hour the Committee had decided to reserve its decision. The meeting would stand adjourned until Thursday, June 30. at 10.30 a.m., and the decision would be given shortly after that time.