LICENSING COURT.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume II, Issue 130, 18 June 1880, Page 3

LICENSING COURT.

[Before John Allen, Esq., Chairman, W. E. Dive, Esq., and A, S. Duncan, Esq., Commissioners.]

An application from Isabella Bruce for a renewal of license, was granted on the condition that within the period of two months the house shall be put in a thorough state of repair, and reported on at the next quarterly licensing day. Mr Crichton, as agent for the owner of the house, undertook the responsibility of seeing that this was done. An application by Win. Doreen for a renewal of the license, was objected toby Sergt. Hogan, on account of the Sergeant having to summons him so often, Mr McNab appeared for the applicant, and the Bench granted the renewals. Sergt. Hogan stated that next to Mr Fear’s, Mr Doreen’s wa the best house in Havelock.

An application by John Wilson, Pelorus Hotel, was granted. JThere were no complaints against this house, which was said to be well kept, and in good order. In the matter of Samuel Green, Accommodation House, an objection was lodged by the Sergeant of Police, that it was kept in a dirty state. The renewal was granted on condition that the house should be kept in a more tidy and creditable manner for the future.

The application of John Moir Dickson, Halfway Accommodation House was granted. There were no complains against the applicant or his house. Moses Fear, of the Commercial Hotel, applied for a renewal of his license. There were no objections, and a renewal was granted. Richard Hutchinson applied for a renewal of license for the Masonic Hotel. An objection had been lodged by the Sergeant of Police, against granting the application, on account of the house being kept in an untidy state, but it was shown in evidence that at the time the house was visited, the occupants were short-handed, and the character of the house being good, the application was granted. In the matter of Daniel Couper, of Couper’s Accommodation House, Pelorus Valley. The applicant did not appear. The Bench intimated there must be a mistake somewhere, and stated that the license would be renewed on Mr Couper entering into the required recognisances within the present month. During the proceedings the Bench complimented! the police for the manner in which they had fulfilled their duties, and Mr McNab also gave corroborative testimony.

WARDEN’S COURT, HAVELOCK. (Before J. Allen, Esq., Warden, on Thursday, June 10th.) An application from Thomas Jones, for a residence area of one acre, about one mile from Canvass Town, formerly occupied by Mills. An objection was lodged by Felix Doherty, who stated he had a hut on the property. The applicant said the hut was his property, and was registered on the 9th October, ’79. The hut was built by himself. There was no other hut on the land. He let it to Mills, who paid Gs a week. An application for a F. Doherty was withdrawn. y Au application for a water-race by Harvey, Lovell, and Biown was adjourned,

SIR GEORGE GREY AND THE PROPERTY TAX. Under this heading some very severe letters arc appearing in the Auckland papers. The following which was published in the Star of 4th inst. may be taken as a sample . Sir, — You are supposed to know everythingand to be specially au fait in the councils of the so-called Liboial

party; can you explain to me how it has come about that Sir George Giey, the people’s chnmpi on, the anti-capita-list, thegreat advocate of taking the burdens off the back of the people and putting them on the shoulders of the wealthy, has suddenly become the mouthpiece of the monied and property classes, while the so-called Conservatives, and champions of the landocracy, with reputed suspicious leanings towards great monctaiy in stitutions, are placed in the position of defending heavy imposts on the property, and a levy of between six and seven thousand pounds a year on one of those very institutions which Sir George C ey acc ised of putting his opponents in power 11 have a very clear recollection that, when in office, Sir George Grey distinctly said that a property tax would be cheerfully paid if the wants of the colo y demanded it and gushingly pictured every man as eager and proud to pay his quota on his little garden patch. The next stery the patriotic gentleman entertained his ad • ire s with, was that the Government never intended to levy the tax, but only used it as a blind to through extra Customs duties and repeal the land tax, and this statement was repeated at his iliames meeting; but now that there isc\ idcnco of a determination to press the collection in earnest, the great pro-consul throws off the mask, and openly arrays himself at the head of the property and monied rings, and leads the charge full tilt against the imposition of a legitimate share of taxation on property and does it (save the mark) in the name of the poor working man! Last session, the -House, without a qualm, levied .£400,000 in new duties, through the Customs, which already was yielding nearly a million and a half to the Colonial Exchequer, and the people have quietly submitted to this. It was only proposed to lay three or four hundred thousandspounds upon property and accumulated wealth which has reaped the whole advantage of the loan expenditure, and what a howl! Is it that the Knight of Kawau takes unkindly to the hundred or two a year that will fall to his own share 1 Even so, it is a little too much to insult the intelligence of his supporters by telling them that the working man will be the sufferer. How much will the working man be called upon to pay of the Kawau assessment 1 How much will he pay of the £2,000 a year Property Tax which one sheep king in Canterbury is assessed for 1 How much will the working man pay of the £BO a year which other nabobs have to dub up in Property Tax for the privilege of living in £20,000 houses 1 Borne others of the Auckland phalanx have managed to get together a few tidy investments in the shape of land; will they manage to screw the tax for that out of the working man 1 Pshaw ! ’tis sicker big. What is the incidence of taxation now ? A man having £250,000 worth of property which the State protects and loans have improved, may contribute less to the revenue than a labourer earning his six shillings a day. The Property Tax will make such a one pay £I,OOO a year. No wonder they howl. Another man doing a large business and living on the smell of an oil rag may hoard his gains and make them multiply by saving or by investments in property to be improved by the toiler who spends what lie earns, and lias not a shilling over on Saturday night. And the perpetuation of this thing is Liberalism, is it 1 ? And the working man is taken for such a dolt as not to see through it ! Out upon it—if that is Liberalism, I’d rather be a conservative, so long as Conservatism means submitting to sacrifices for the salvation of the country. In the United Kingdom the wealth of the country contributed last year in direct taxation by Property and Income Tax, no less a sum than £11,995,000, and from Customs only £20,000,000. But that is a place where the masses of the people are serfs, ground down by the monied classes.—l am, etc., A Radical, but xot a Fool.