PRINCE ALBERT HOTEL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4900, 5 December 1876, Page 2

PRINCE ALBERT HOTEL.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES.

.Sib, —One of your evening contemporaries' in Saturday .night’s issue gives a glowing account of a new hotel built for a Mr. S. Oliver, at the corner of Cuba and Webb streets. This is news to those living in that district, for in it we recognise _an old . friend of the Court, a license having been applied for this house last quarter; and, what we would especially call the attention of.the Bench to,-was refused unanimously., as, “ not.wanted or required in the district.” With this decision an evening paper at the time, in a sub-leader, expressed general concurrence, , as one of the most sensible things ever done by the Bench; because it was time that the fact should be established that the building a house does not insure a license being: granted to it; and showing at the same time that this house was built after every possible - warning had been given to the owner by theadjoining residents, and.- also by the police. Both at the proprietor, if he possesses a whiteelephant, has acquired it with his eyes open. It seems patent to us in this case, and also ■ must to the common sense of: everyone, that if the Bench should in any mysterious manner resolve to grant a license now, where three months '■ ago they decided that there was not the slightest necessity for it, they will stultify themselves ■ in such a manner as to prove total incapacity,. and the sooner a change of : occupants takes - place the better. The -present applicant weknow positively to be a very respectable man but so was the former applicant, Mr. Duff. So change of applicant ■ makes no improveThe verdict still is simply not wanted. We nnderstand that the residents of the dia--trict in'which this house is situated have again' engaged counsel to oppose the application. Itseems very unfair that having once, by a largemajority, and in a legal manner, expressed their opposition, that at the end of every threemonths they should be expected to do thesame thing over again. There should be-some section in the Act to declare any such house 1 ineligible to have a license granted for a period of at least twelve months.' Another fair complaint against the. Act- is the want of some, simple arrangement whereby informa--tion could be' gained as to future - procuration of a license for any • house proposed to beerected, say, by deposit of plans of building in Court and due notice to the public, by advertisement through the Press, of the intention to build. Then, on the non-interference of those interested, the satisfaction of'the Jlench as to accommodation in the proposed hotel, and due consideration of the necessity for such a house, a distinct promise of a license be given, subject to erection of building according toplans laid before the Bench,' the carrying out of the same designs being easily secured by the Bench signing the plans laid before them, for future identification; so that on a reproduction of these plans, and a.certificate on oath from a respectable architect that the house had been erected according to them, a license should at once be granted. , Some such provision as this in the Act would have prevented the last-mentioned hotel, and also the Railway Hotel, standing as large unprofitable speculations.—l am., &c., ''■ ' : , ' ; ■ Te Abo.