OTHER APPLICATIONS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5073, 27 June 1877, Page 3

OTHER APPLICATIONS.

The first case called was that of the Pahautanui Hotel, Henry Hillier being the appliWorships, on the ground that the house is improperly conducted. Mr Ollivier, who appeared for the applicant, called attention in the first place to the provisions of the statute under which the proceedincs of the Court had to be conducted, and the Act of 1874 made ample provision for regulating the procedure in such cases as those with which the Licensing Bench had now to deal He would draw attention to the latter part of the 31st section of the Act, which provided as follows:—That where there were any objections other than the objections of private parties Meed by memorial, then the Court should adjourn V any period not exceeding 14 days, in order that the person or persons objected to might have an opportunity of replying to the same : Provided also that the Court should after such adjournment forthwith give to such persons notice of the objections ; the notice to be served in writing upon the persons; or, if they could not be found, then the notice should be left at their last known place of abode. Inspector Atcheson said he had understood at the last meeting that Mr. Ollivier consented to waive these formalities in consideration of the cases being adjourned for a week. Mr Ollivier said the Act required that a notice should be served of the specific nature of the objections taken to the granting of a license. This, he submitted, was only reasonable for it was surely absurd to ask men to come to that Court and meet any possible objections that might be raised by the police. For instance, an applicant not possessing a knowledge of the objections likely to be taken, might bring all the residents of a district in his behalf, °aud then, miss the mark, having entirely mistaken the nature of the complaints laid against him. Mr. Ollivier then pointed to other sections of the Act relating to the course of procedure to be adopted, and stated that it was the duty of the Clerk of the Court to give notice to applicants. Inspector Atcheson said Mr. Ollivier must be aware that he (Inspector Atcheson) stated at the last meeting of the Court that the application in the present case was not received in time, and therefore no notice of objection had been' given. He also pointed out that subsection 6 of the Act provided that the Bench had a right to take notice of objection themselves. Mr. Ollivier said that was a power conferred on the Commissioners prior to the necessity of giving the notice ; for instance, the Licensing Commissioners when, they last met took judicial notice of the fact that an objection had been made to the granting of this license, and they adjourned for a time, in order that the matter might be properly gone into ; but still the applicant had received no notice, and was as yet completely in the dark as to the specific nature of the objections to his having a license. . The Inspector : If it is such a straightforward case, surely Mr. Ollivier need not object to evidence being taken. Mr. Barton drew the attention of the Bench to the fact that there were three cases in a precisely similar position, and counsel were desirous of saying a few words before a decision was arrived at as to any one of them singly. The Chairman : Do they all stand on the same footing 1 » . . The Inspector : Yes, your V* orship. Mr. Barton said there had been no notice served in any of the cases, and what he contended was that it was not only the business of the police, but also of the Court to give proper notice. . The statute put the case very clearly, and if the Court did not act in accordance with the provisions of the statute, it could not very well take advantage of its own fault. The applicant should be made acquainted with the particular matter which in the opinion of the Court formed a reasonable ground of objection, and also the date of the day upon which such objection would be heard. Now, he did not pretend to deny that they were acquainted with the day on which their applications would be heard ; but, so far as he was concerned, it was perfectly unknown to him what were their Worships' opinions on the subject—there being four gentlemen on the Bench, and it being quite possible that each might have a different opinion on the matter of "objection to a license. Tims it would be seen that something more was required than a notice from the police. The applicant had not only to fight the opposite party, but to contend with the Court itself, which was, to a certain extent, prejudiced by the admission of objections as reasonable in the first instance. Therefore he contended that they were entitled under the Act to be made acquainted with everything likely to be brought against them, so that they might come into the Court armed cap-a-pie to meet the objections. Under these circumstances, he contended that it was the duty of the Court to put a fair face on the matter, and grant the licenses. Inspector Atcheson : Who do you represent, sir? Mr. Barton : I appear on behalf of Mr. Edwards, of the Waterloo Hotel. The Inspector remarked that the constable's report had been sent in, and was in the possession of the Bench. The report was looked up and handed to counsel.

Mr. Barton said thfJ report produced strengthened his argument. It waa to the effect that the Waterloo Hotel was by repute the resort of prostitutes, drunken characters, ami Suniay trading. Now, he would ask, did lhat give a particle of information as to what the applicant was called upon to meet in the way of objections ? " Repute " signified nothing, because it contained no specific charge. It would be dangerous to admit such statements as these as proof of the character of a man or his house. The duty of the police, instead of sayiDg that the hotel in question was reputed to be tins', that, or the other, -was to have named some of the bad characters known to have been there, and to have stated whether they stopped there, and if so for how long. As to drunken characters, the allusion was too general to be properly understood. He should take it to mean persons who were continually getting drunk and appearing before Mr. Crawford. Surely if the man had such a fact as that' to go on, he should have given the names of the drunken characters he spoke of. Inspector Ateheson: They go by so many names. . Mr. Barton : Then give their aliases. Mr. Moore : There are a great many people who get drunk, and are not locked up at all. Mr. Barton : No doubt, your Worship, and in all grades of society. But to turn to anothe/phase of the question. I have before had occasion to state to the Bench that a publican has no right to refuse to serve either man or woman so long as they conduct themselves properly, and can pay for what they get. The Chairman : We n«cd not trouble you to proceed further, Mr. Barton, the Bench have made up their minds to grant the license. The decision of the. Court in this case also applied to those which preceded it, namely, the applications of Henry Hillier, Pahautanui, and George Biddle, of Wallace's Hotel, Ngabauranga, each being granted. HONEYMOON COTTAGE, KAnOKI. This was an application by John Forbes Orr for a new license for the house known as Honeymoon Cottage, Karori. The- objection of the police to a licenso being granted was that the house was not required. Mr. Buckley appeared in support of the application, and stated that he was prepared to call a lot of evidence. John Forbes Orr deposed that he was the owner of the property upon which the house known as Honevmoon Cottage was built. He bought it some years ago for £750. _ Since that he had made great improvements in the property, noon which altogether he had expended ;£2O6C- The house contained 14 rooms, and .-■fcisAii all respects suitable for a hotel. Had been pressed by the people of the district and per-on* in the habit of travelling that way to build the hoose, and apply for a license. They nrged him to get it, as there was no accommodation there at present. Had never had an idea that any objection would be made to the granting of a license for the house. By the Inspector : I have spent £2OOO on the property. I include the money I paid for

the land in that. I spent £7OO on the house. The dimensions of the building are shown on the plan before the Court. I have al-o stables erected.

Inspector Atcheson stated that since the house had been closed the whole district had been freer from drunkenness and disturbances. Mr. Orr said the house had formerly been improperly conducted ; and the district had not been free from drunkenness since the house was closed.

Henry Owen stated that he was in the habit of passing through Karori, and knew that the granting of a license to the Honeymoon Cottige would be a great advantage to him. Stephen Lancaster deposed that he resided at Karori, within a short distance of the house in question. Had considerably property in the neighborhood—l6o acres of land and five or six houses. Had a family residing with him. He certainly considered that it would be an advantage to the neighborhood to have a licensed hotel properly conducted there. A great many people in the habit of travelling out there had complained tohimof thewautofaccommodation. He believed a well-conducted house would be a areat benefit to the district. Had seen the Honeymoon Cottage, and thought it was a suitable house, affording ample accommodation. The Bench : Is there not a tea garden in the district, where people can get refreshment if they require it ? ... Witness : There is such a place, but it is more that half a mile distant from the road. Mr. Buckley said he had some other witnesses, but did not deem it necessary to call them. C. C. Graham deposed that he was a resident in the neighborhood of Karori, where he had lived for upwards of four years. At the request of a number of settlers he had got up a petition against the license. Mr. Buckley objected to hearing any evidence about a petition of which no notice had been given in due time. _ _ Ultimately it was decided that the petition could not be admitted, and that witness could only give evidence as to his own reason for objecting to the license. Mr. Graham therefore continued, but confined himself to the limits laid down by the Court. His reason for objecting to the license beiui; granted was the fear of the ill effects it was calculated to have upon the district, being led to entertain this fear in consequence of the experience gathered when there was a licensed house in the district. There was not sufficient traffic there to pay a publican in a legitimate wav, and the only way in which a house could be made profitable would be by the encouragement of drinking in the district. Hitheito they had done very well without a publichouse there, and could very well get on without one now.

Mr. Buckley : You object to a public-house of any description there ? Witness : Yes, decidedly. Mr. Buckley : And would not favor, another house if one were applied for ? Witness : No.

Mr. Buckley : Will you undertake to swear that you did not say you would not oppose a license applied for by a man named Spiers or one named Neil ?

Witness : Certainly I will swear it. I cannot understand why you ask me the question. Mr. Buckley : Were you not influenced by political motives in getting up that petition you speak of ? Witness : No ; certainly not. Ido not see what politics could have to do with the question. Mr. Buckley : Have you not been urged by certain people to oppose it ? Witness : No.

Mr. Buckley : Did you not tell a man named Neil that you would not appear to oppose it. Witness : No; I only told him that I would do nothing further in the matter, as the majority of the people in the district appeared to favor the license, but that I must submit the petition which at the request of certain settlers I had already got up. A person named Neil was called by Mr. Buckley to show that Mr. Graham had said he would not appear personally in Court to oppose the license.

Mr. Graham said the man mu3t have misunderstood him. What he did say was that having promised to get up the petition he must support it. The Chairman of Commissioners announced that the Bench, after consideration, had decided to refuse the license. The Court then adjourned.