HUTT LICENSING COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5062, 14 June 1877, Page 2

HUTT LICENSING COURT.

Wednesday, June 13. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., chairman, John Grace and William Beetham, Esquires, Commissioners.) The Licensing Court for the Hutt District was held at the Lower Hutt. There were no applications for new licenses, and the following applications for renewals were disposed of: — PROVINCIAL HOTEL. Horace Ames applied for a renewal of the license of the Provincial Hotel, Upper Hutt. The constable of the district had lodged a complaint against Mr. Ames, to the effect that a drunken woman, who made her appearance in the Police Court some days ago, had been served with drink in the Provincial Hotel. It was found, however, that there was nothing in the complaint, the woman having obtained the bottle of spirits found upon her from another house. The Bench granted the licence. ALBION HOTEL. J. Hicks Corbitt, of Silverstream, was the applicant. Licence granted. whitewood’s hotel. This hotel is situated at the Lower Hutt. James D. Fraser applied for a renewal of the licence. The police report was to the effect that the house was iu au advanced state of decay, being a number of years old. The applicant stated that he was about to build a new house, and produced the plans. He proposed to commence building as soon as the summer set in, and would build the house in divisions, in order to enable him to carry on his business whilst the work was proceeding. The Bench granted the license, but gave Mr. Fraser notice that it ivould not again be renewed at next annual meeting unless a new house were erected before that time came round. GOLDEN FLEECE HOTEL. Robt. H. Elliott made application for a renewal of his license for the Golden Fleece Hotel, Pakuratahi. It appealed that the house was generally kept clean and well conducted, and the license was granted. FAMILY HOTEL. Applicant, Richard F. Petford. There was no complaint made by the police. License granted. RAILWAY HOTEL. The application of N. Valentine, for a renewal of the license of the Railway Hotel, Lower Hutt, was granted. traveller’s rest. Charles F. Worth was the applicant. The police raised the same objections iu this case as iu that of Whitewood’s Hotel, Lower Hutt. The report stated the house was old and rotten. Mr. Worth admitted tiiat the house was rotten, and stated that he had since taking possession lost no time in effecting improvements. Finding that there was, iu the first place, pressing want of stabling accommodation, he had incurred an expenditure of £SOO in erecting commodious stables which he flattered himself were the best iu the colony ; and that morniug ho had accepted tenders for the erection of a new hotel, which would be up in the course of a few months. He submitted the plans for the consideration of the Court. The Bench approved of the plans, and granted the license. RAILWAY HOTEL, UPPER HUTT. Isaac Wilkins was the applicant. The police reported that the house was generally well kept. License granted. MUNC.AROA HOTEL, The application for a license for the above hotel, Muugaroa, was granted. CRITERION HOTEL, UPPER HUTT. Applicant, Thomas George Dugard, on whose behalf Mr. Quick appeared.

A complaint was made to the effect that the house was not well conducted.

Mr. Quick said he thought the report must refer to the time prior to Mr. Dugard bein" the proprietor of the Criterion Hotel. ° Constable Lyster said, No—the misconduct had taken place since the present landlord’s time.

Inspector Atoheson suggested that the cob. stable should be sworn.

Constable Lyster was accordingly sworn. He stated that on the 14th of last month there were a lot of drunken men turned out of the house, and the house was noted for fmhtin'r and drunkenness. He also stated that Dugard had kept a man there seven days, taken charn-e of his money, ,£l2 10s., and at the end of that time told him that he had nothing ■cpmimr to him. This man, Robinson, comphu'hed'lL, Constable Lyster, and asked him what, he should do under the circumstances, as he knew he had not spent the whole of his money in the house. In answer to Mr. Quick, Constable Lyster said Robinson was not in attendance.

Mr. Quick said he objected to hearsay evidence, and called Thomas George Dugard, landiord of the Criterion Hotel, who denied that his house was of a rowdy character, or that any fighting had taken place on the day mentioned by the constable. As to the man Robinson, mentioned by Constable Lyster, the facts were these : He came to the house, and a friend took his money from him and handed it to the landlady to take care of. The man spent the money in the house, drinking himself and “ shouting ” drink and refreshments for a number of men who were there. He went away perfectly satisfied. Witness saw him afterwards, when he said that Constable Lyster had told him he would make this money business the subject of “ a case ” against witness at the Licensing Court. Inspector Atcheson examined the witness, asking him did he think the bill he had made out for £l2 15s. was a fair one, considering the man had only stayed at his house seven days.

Constable Gillespie gave evidence to the effect that he lived a little distance from the Criterion Hotel, which he did not look upon as a rowdy house. It was generally quiet—there had only been one row there since Mr. Dugard took.possession. It was a trifling affair, and took place outside the house. All he knew about Robinson’s case was that the man came to him stating he had put £l2 10s. into Mr. Dugard’s hands, and asked what he should do. Witness told him that he should go to Dugard and have a settlement.

By the Inspector : Robinson was in a muddled state when I saw him. Mr. Quick called the attention of the Bench to the fact of there being a difference between the evidence of the two constables, and contended that the evidence of Gillespie, whose special duty was in the district surrounding Mr. Dugard’s hotel, should be sufficient to show that the house had been well conducted; and there was no evidence at all as to Robinson’s case. Constable Lyster should have bis witness in attendance. The Chairman of Commissioners said the Court was of opinion that it could not consider the matter ; Robinson himself should have been present to give evidence ; and as the constable of the district had proved that the house was kept in an orderly manner, the Court granted the license.