LICENSING COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5224, 19 December 1877, Page 3

LICENSING COURT.

Tuesday, December 18. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., chairman, J. Moore, Esq., and T. Kebbell, Esq., ho nslug- commissioners.)

queer’s hotel. This was an application by James Brown for a license for a new building, situate on the site of the old Army and Navy Hotel, ihe application was postponed f ora a previous meeting, as the building was not then comP Inspector Atcheson stated he had visited the premises, and found the building m a fat state for the license to issue. There was one matter, however, which had not been attended to namely, the construction of a fire-escape from the back of the hotel to the Terrace. Mr. Brown stated that steps had, already been taken to have the work carried out. The license was granted. MERE BRISKING SALOONS.

Inspector Atcheson said he desired to draw the attention of the Bench to certain hotels in Te Aro, where the landlords refused accommodation to travellers, making the excuse that the hotels were already full of lodgers. Subsequeatiuquiries often proved that there was nobody in the house except the landlord’s family. There were 44 hotel-, in town, of which 21 were in Te Aro, and many of those houses obtained licenses on the understanding that proper accommodation would be provided for travellers; but the conditions were in many cases evaded, and the houses were merely drinking saloons. The refusal to admit lodgers without° sufficient cause laid the publican open to a penalty of £lO, and he desired to obtain an expression of opinion from the Bench, so that those who might be prosecuted for evasion of the law could_ not plead that thev had been taken by surprise. Mr. Crawford said if such a case were proved, it would justify the Bench in refusing to renew a license. It would be well it, in legislation on the question of the licensing laws, the Legislature would fix a minimum amount of accommodation before the license could be Atchison said in some of the hotels to which he alluded there was plenty of accommodation, but as the bar trade paid best, the proprietors refused to take lodgers. Mr. Crawford said it was undoubtedly the intention of the Bench, in granting the licenses, that accommodation should be provided for travellers and others, . Inspector Atchison intimated that in any case of the infringement of the law in this direction he would bring the matter before the Court.

THEATRE ROYAL HOTEL. An application was made for a transfer of the license of the above hotel from Thomas Urvvin to Thomas Bailey. The transfer had been granted temporarily, but owing to some irro-ularities the permanent transfer was postponed Inspector Atcheaon stated that a watch had been stolen in the hotel; but as he was for tbe present satisfied with the explanation of the applicant, he would not oppose the transfer be ng granted. The watch-stealing case would he brought before the Supreme Court, and if anything was brought out discreditable to the landlord of the hotel,ho would make a note of it, and inform the Bench. The trail for was granted, the Bench cautioning Mr. Bailey to be more careful in the conduct of his house in the future.

PRINCESS THEATRE HOTEL. A fresh application was made for a license for the above hotel, but as Mr. Moore had left the Bench, there was not a quorum of commissioners present, and the application could not be entertained. Mr. Moorhouse was understood to say that a deputation of gentlemen would wait on the Bench in reference to some license. Mr. Crawford was of opinion that such deputations were irregular. It was tine that at the last meeting they had heard a deputation headed by the Bishop of Wellington, as it was thought as well to hear the opinion of the deputation on the subject. However, it was not desirable to establish the practice of hearing deputations. Mr. Moorhouse said he would communicate with the gentlemen he had referred to, and inform them of Mr. Crawford’s opinion. After considerable argument as to whether the two gentlemen on the Bench could deal with matteis before them, the Chairman expressed an opinion that they could not. He had doubts, moreover, whether they had power to adjourn the Court to a particular day. After much persuasion, Mr. Oi-awford said they would accept the risk, and adjourn the Court till Thursday week, and it was adjourned accordingly.