LICENSING COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 4987, 17 March 1877, Page 1 (Supplement)

LICENSING COURT.

Friday, March 16. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq. (chairman), J. Kebhell, Esq., and Major Raul.) The Licensing Court sat yesterday at noon to hear certain cases adjourned from the quarterly meeting. THEATRE royal hotel. The first case considered was the application of Mr.XJrwin for a license for the new Theatre Royal Hotel. Mr. Travers appeared for Mr. Urwin ; and Mr. Barton, for Mr. Coker, appeared with Mr. Buckley to oppose the granting of the license. Mr. Crawford said the first point to consider in this case was the clause of the Act referring to certain limitations as to the * character of a building being occupied as a hotel. At the first glance, it appeared that : the clause of the Act referring to shops in connection with hotels would prevent the Court from granting a license to this house, but interpreting the Act liberally, and putting a reasonable interpretation to the wording, the Court was of opinion that the objection regarding the existence of shops did not apply in this case. The Court considered that for all practical purposes of the Act the shops formed no part of the building in question, as there was no communication between them and the hotel. Considering that licenses had been granted in this and other colonies, and in Europe, under similar circumstances, the Bench thought the safest thing they could do would be to rule that the clause of the Licensing Act referring to shops did not apply in this case, and therefore could be no obstacle to the granting of the license. Mr. Barton : I would ask the Bench not to issue the license until we have had an opportunity of applying to the Supreme Court to settle the question, which is of considerable importance. Mr. Crawford : The Court will not deter the matter.

Mr. Barton ; I may point out to your Worships that by granting the license matters will become complicated, and my only remedy will be to apply to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, or to bring an action against the Commissioners for illegally granting the license. Their Worships would sec that if he was compelled to adopt tho course he had pointed out, he should bo placed in a very awkward position, and he hoped, therefore, that they would accede to his request for delay in granting the license. There was one other ([question ho had to ask their Worships. He was instructed to ask whether it was a fact that one of their Worships was himself interested in tho matter, in so far that ho held certain shares in tho Theatre Royal Company. Mr. Kebhell : If reference is made to me, I may state that I have no shares in the company. Mr. Crawford : I had a few shares some time hack, but I sold them, Mr. Barton said ho understood that Mr. •Kebhell had some shares in the company.

Mi - . Kebbell said ho had sold hia shares many months ago. Mr. Barton said the transfer did not appear in the records of the company. So far as the public records were concerned therefore, Mr. Kebbell still remained a shareholder of the company. Mr. Crawford : But Mr. Kebbell says ho doqp not bold any shares.

Mr. Crawford hero ruled that for tho purposes of the Act, practically the shops formed no part of the hotel. Mr. Buckley; Although, in reality, they are. Mr. Travers said that while in tho Supreme

Court that morning he had noticed on the order paper that Mr. Barton had made a motion for prohibition against granting the license, and when the case was called on by the Chief Justice no one was present to support it. It had consequently been struck out. Therefore he conceived his friend had no need to make application for time to apply to the Supreme Court. He ought to have made it in pursuance of his notice on tho paper. When a decision was once announced by tho Chairman it had no right to be questioned or reconsidered, and Mr. Barton ought not now to attempt to lay the foundation of ulterior action. Of course, it was open to Mr. Barton to proceed by certiorari. Mr. Crawford remarked that it was no use arguing the matter further. Mr. Barton said it was his intention to place upon affidavit the decision of the Court. He held that the hotel would be a more drinking saloon, not an hotel in any sense of tho word, and it did not actually come within the Act. It was perfectly evident it was but a mere drinking saloon—a sort of back to the theatre, to which people would leap from tho benches to drink at the upper part, and tho people of tho pit would go to the bottom part to drink. He contended that it was not proper or within the statute to grant a license to a mere drinking saloon. He pointed out that Coker’s hotel was a family one in tho strictest sense of the word.

Mr. Crawford: Well, I have heard that Mr. Coker refuses to take ladies in, and that will scarcely bear out your statement. Mr. Travers said it seemed hard that his client should bo brought into Court to answer every objection raised. The only objection originally was that the- granting of the license would increase the insurance on the adjoining property. Mr. Barton : But the place is not wanted. Mr. Travers : Their Worships have decided it is.

Mr. Barton said that Mr. Coker might lose £IOOO a year by a license being granted for the Theatre Royal Hotel. Mr. Crawford ; And Mr. TJrwin would lose a good deal probably by tailing to get a license for his hotel.

Mr. Barton ; But ho had his eyes wide open when he built the house. If he (Mr. Barton) could prove that Mr. Coker would be injured by the license, he had a right to do so. His Worship : I rule against you. Mr. Barton : Then I must ask your Worship to make a note of that. His Worship said he would not take a note of it. He did not take a note of these licensing cases. Mr. Barton then said he must ask the Bench to allow him to stop till he took a note of it himself, as the matter was one of some importance. After the lapse of several minutes, Mr. Barton referred tho Court to a Supreme Court case, in which it had been decided that by the discretion of the Bench matters of which no notice had been given might bo argued by counsel. The Bench decided to grant the license.

Mr. Barton then drew attention to what he called the impropriety of the Times newspaper, which had attempted to dictate to tho Bench as to the course it should adopt in respect to the license for this hotel. He considered, that the Bench should put a stop to this state of things. Mr. Crawford : By what means ?

Mr. Barton : At least by an expression of opinion from the Bench. It is not right that papers should dictate to the Court in these matters. (He then quoted from an article which in the New Zealand Times describing the Theatre Royal Hotel, and continued:) Here is an article, in what is supposed to be the leading newspaper in the place, dictating to the Bench. Ido not for a moment pretend to say that your Worships could be influenced in the slightest degree by what I have read. lam perfectly certain, at all events, so far as the president of this Court is concerned. But I do say that the Bench is placed in the unpleasant position of having it supposed that the New Zealand Times had dictated its decision in this case, and that it presented in consequence a very improper spectacle.

Mr. Crawford : I am not aware that I read the article in question, and I think I can say the same for my fellow-commissioners. But however that may be, this Court would not be influenced in its decision by anything that might appear in the papers. Mr. Barton : I do not assume, your .Worship, that the Bench was interested ; I was only drawing attention to the impropriety of such articles being inserted in the papers, in order that the practice might be put a stop to. Mr. Crawford ; I do not see what the Bench can do in the matter. However, I see the Inspector of Police present, and perhaps he will take the matter into his consideration, as .to whether it would be advisable to lay an information against the proprietors of the paper. (Laughter). Mr. Barton ; All I can say, your Worships, is that the proceeding was most improper. That same newspaper attempted the same sort of thing in another way. It did not succeed on that occasion, and I feel perfectly sure that it would not have succeeded on the present occasion had your Worships come to an honorable conelusion in your own minds that it was not proper that the case should succeed. I repeat that the course pursued by the Times was highly improper. It is, in fact, a disgrace to the British Press. Mr. Crawford : I thought you had done with the newspaper, Mr. Barton. (Laughter.) Mr. Barton : Now I have, your Worship. Mr. Crawford ; Then do I understand that you have concluded your remarks 1 Mr. Barton; Yes, your Worship ; but I would impress upon you the importance of suspending your decision Mr. Crawford : The Bench grants the license.

RAILWAY HOTEL,

This was an application by Thomas Clarey for, a license for a new house, known as the Bailway Hotel., Mr. Ollivier appeared for the applicant, and stated that a license had been refused on two former occasions, in consequence of an objection raised by the police that the house had not sufficient accommodation, and was not properly built. He was now in a position to prove that there was no objection to the granting of a license, but that on the contrary the residents in the immediate neighborhood of the house were in favor of it. He then called

Mr. Mace and Mr. Clarey. The latter stated that he was in occupation of the Railway Hotel, in which there were fifteen rooms eight bedrooms—and that it possessed all the accommodation required. Inspector Atcheson opposed the granting of the license on the ground that there was not sufficient accommodation in the house. He pointed out that the police had been at considerable trouble to abolish those ■“ wretched shanties” in d’lferont parts of the town, and the result was an improvement generally in tho hotel accommodation of the city. Ho trusted that the Bench would not grant the license applied for. License refused. PAIIAUTANUX HOTEL, An application for the transfer of tho license of the above hotel from Samuel Prosser to H. Helliers was granted. cricketers’ arms. The Bench granted a transfer of the license of tho Cricketers’ Arms Hotel from J. A. Chaney to John Murphy. The Court then adjourned.