LICENSING COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4901, 6 December 1876, Page 2

LICENSING COURT.

Tuesday, December 5. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., chairman. Major Paul, J, Moore, Esq., and T. Kebbell, Esq.,

Commissioners.) The quarterly meeting of the Licensing Court for Wellington city was held yesterday afternoon at 2 o’clock, and the following applications were disposed of transfer. 1 Mr. Brandon applied that the hearing of an application for transferring the license of the Rainbow Hotel, Kaiwarra, from McLean to McCulloch, should take precedence of the new licenses. , < -•* Inspector Atolioson intimated that he should object to any transfer so long as the present tenant remained in the hotel. Mr. Brandon said he would undertake to get McLean out. , j . Mrv McLean, who was called, said lie was to get , .£6O to go out of the house, , but had not yet received the money, and he intended, to remain in possession until-the money was paid. ' . The application was adjourned.

LINCOLN’S INN. ! Mr. Stafford appeared for the • applicant, Joseph Ames; Inspector Atcheson opposed the license. ■ . . Mr. Stafford stated that the bouse would be completed on the 28th December, and when it was finished’he held that there could be no objection to the license being granted.; , Inspector Atcheson said it was impossible to tell what the house would be, as it was at pre"eent simply a skeleton. It was asking for .a license for a, house whiob literally dm ■ exist. ' , _ . Mr. Stafford contended that the Inspector did not put the case correctly. There was a contract to complete the house, by the _eth inst., and the contractors would naturally push ; on the work to avoid the penalty for non-com-pletion within the specified time. ... i Inspector Atcheson : Your Worships have decided over and over again that licenses . could not be granted where the house was not completed, i: < ~ " • ' ' ; The Bench decided to refuse the license. CITY CAKE. , : i Mr. Allan appeared on behalf of the applicant, Ealph Levpi, who he said had gone to , considerable expense in making his house as convenient as possible, and in providing the ~ necessary betel accommodation. Mr. Levoi had been carrying on the house as a cafe, mid had given the most complete satisfaction to his .customers. • ■' . Ealph Levoi was examined, as to the business in whichhehad been engaged during the last eight months. • He testified to the money he had expended on the house in providing ' additional accommodation, a description .of. which appeared in yesterday’s issue. He had received complaints constantly from' ms ous- . tomers that they could not obtain ole with their meals.' , . ~ „ J Inspector Atcheson, in reply to the Bench, stated that he should to the license, there being a petition against it. . , Mr. Allah objected to any petition going in, as no notice of it had be iven. Mr. Wilson, of Wilson and Kichardaon, asked for an adjournment in order that a petition against the license might be presented, and stated that his partner attended the Court for the purpose of lodging, a petition against the granting of a license to Levoi, but the Clerk of the Court told him that as Levoi’S application had not been lodged, the petition ■ would be useless. ' > Mr. Baker said this was hot a quite correct statement of the facts. Mr. Eichardson lodged bis petition too late, and it could not therefore be received. The Chairman said the circumstances now were no different to those shown at the former application. Taking into account the increased danger from fire which the presence, of a public-house in such a block would give rise to, the Bench did not feel justified in granting the license. Besides there were haberdashers’ - shops and merchants’ stores there, and it would not be advisable to have a public-house in such a locality. ; * The license was refused. ■ '■ THEATRE ROYAL "HOTEL. Thomas Urwin was the applicant, for whom Mr. OUivier appeared, and applied for an adjournment for ten days, at the end of which . time the building would be completed. The Chairman said the Bench would stultify, themselves by adopting the course suggested. ; j The application for adjournment was refused, it being understood that the case would come on at next quarterly meeting. PRINCE ALBERT HOTEL. Mr. Stafford, for the applicant, explained that on a previous occasion a license was re-: fused, on the ground thpt the house was not required. He proposed to show now that the, house was required. The application was backed up by the signature of some 153 resi- : dents. The house was in the vicinity of 282' houses south of Abel Smith-street, there being 1128 persons in the immediate district. Mr. S. Baker was examined as to the signatures, which he said were genuine, and those of residents in the district. Mr. OUivier being about to enter an objection to some of the evidence, Mr, Stafford objected to Mr. OUivier being heard, on the ground that no notice of the ' opposition had been given.' Mr. OUivier contended that this application was simply a renewal of that made at last meeting, .which was refused, and therefore the objectors were entitled to appear in the same position with respect to the case as they occupied on that occasion. ■The opinion of the Bench was that Mr. OUivier should not be heard. ■ _ - Mr. OUivier then, as araiem curue, drew attention to the 31st clause of the Act of 1874, providing that the Bench might take cognisance of all legitimate grounds 'of opposition without notice being given. ■ The case was then proceeded with, and Mr. Stafford called Mr. Cheesman, who, being sworn, said he knew the principal names on the requisition, and conld swear to the signatures of most of them. As to the house, speaking as an bid resident, he could say-that there was not a honse equal to it in that district. - Mr. Webb said he Uved in Webb-street, and considered the house would be a pubUc convenience; Mr. James Ames was also examined, and gave evidence as to thenumber of houses in the vicinity of the house for which the application was made. His testimony was in, effect the same as what Mr.'Stafford'said in his statement of the case to the Bench. Mr.-Duff said the hotel altogether had cost him over £2OOO. -- - •Inspector Atcheson had no objection to Mr. Duff, but considered the house was not wanted in the neighborhood. ' The Bench adhered to its former decision in the case, and refused the license. : RAILWAY HOTEL. William, Munro was the applicant, represented by Mr. Barton, who stated that on a former occasion- the license had been refused on. the ground of insufficient - accommodation. That want had since been suppUed. ■ The Inspector Aid he 'still objected to the, license, because an hotel in that direction was not wanted, and the neighborhood objected. .Mr.'-Barton submitted- that there: was no place where proper drinking accommodation was more required than at or near a railway station.. ■’ Messrs. Irvine-and Eansom, architect and builder respectively, were examined, . and generally spoke in favorable; terms of .* the hotel, "■ ■ ’■ • The Court considered-the circumstances of the case were, precisely similar to those, on the last occasion, when the house was hold to have' Insufficient accommodation. Therefore the Ucense was refused. • TRANSFERS GRANTED. , The foUowing transfers of licenses weregranted:—Criterion Hotel, John Bertie to/ Carl Hansmann; Post Office; Hotel, Charles, ■Brown to. Joseph Harding; .White Swan Hotel, J. .Andrews to John Bertie; Albion- Hotel, F;- Broughton to C. Martin; Bank Hotel, G. Mclntosh to J. Mclntosh; Newtown Hotel, C. Moody to Walter Haynes; New Zealander Hotel, D. P. Player to James Fenton; KenHotel, J. Quin to W. E. Jackson; Kaxori Hotel, J.'.Hindge to J. Marton. A WARNING. ' , , Inspector Atcheson drew the attention of the Bench to the manner in which the Central Hotel was conducted; He complained that the proprietor, Mr. Cimino, was unfit to have the management of an hotel, inasmuch as he encouraged sailors about his house and induced them to get drunk, and Captain Sellars had complained to the police that he had experienced considerable ’ difficulty in getting some of Kis sailors away from the house, and on one occasion the landlord had induced a sailor to stop on shore by keeping his clothes. Mr, Cimino denied the latter statement. Inspector Atcheson said his object in bringing this .; matter before the attention of the Court on the present occasion was that if the Bench desired it Captain Sellars" could be called' to pve evidence to satisfy the Bench, and he. might be absent at the next quarterly meeting, when unless Mr. Cimino managed his business ' in a more becoming manner, ho (the Inspector) should make application to have the license cancelled. 1 The Bench directed Mr. Cimino’s atcention to what the Inspector had said, and the Court