LICENSING COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5293, 13 March 1878, Page 3

LICENSING COURT.

- Tuesday, March 12. (Before Messrs. Crawford, chairman; Kebbell andiMoore, commissioners.) . , TRAMWAY HOTEL. , _ - Application was made by Mr. Fitz Gerald, on behalf of Mr. O. Moody, for a license for the Tramway Hotel, Adelaide-road. He stated that the house was situated iu the centre of fa large - and rapidly increasing suburb, and was distant 500, yards away from the neatest hotel —the Caledonian; ‘ A numeroUsly signed petition had been got up in its favor, but it had been mislaid with other petitions. He thenproceeded to call witnesses. |,; : ; j A. G. Pilmer, architect, gave a' desoriptiqn of the building, which he said contained every accommodation for an hotel. I The Rev, Mr. Coffey presented a petition against the granting of the license, and crossexamined witness * regarding the number of rooms in the hotel. - , -■ * Applicant produced a letter from Dr. Watts, who stated in it that although he was opposed generally to the increase,of; hotels, be was of opinion that the Tramway Hotel wouldbe a boon to the neighborhood. - Mr. Moody stated-the number of houses in the locality, and the rateable value of ; property.. ' ■ ' Cross-examined by Mr. Coffey : The* Gale-, donian Hotel was situate about five minutes’ walk from the Tramway Hotel. Witness had built the Newtown Hotel, and sold it at a profit of £6OO, He also built the Star Hotel, and sold it at a profit of £SOO or £6OO, but the conditions; of sale were not yet fulfilled, and he had hitherto received no actual profits. He hoped to make at least £IOOO bn; the Tramway Hotel. 1 There were ten bedrooms in it, though one was used as a bathroom. i Inspector Atcheson was called and asked by the Rev. Mr. Coffey whether his experience of hotels had not taught him that, no matter how well a house might be conducted by the proprietor, it would still cause an increase of drunkenness in the surrounding district t Mr. ■ Fitz Gerald having objected to the question as irrelevant, The Chairman said the Court could not entertain abstract questions of words, and they must guard themselves against getting into controversies which did not directly affect the application under consideration. The Court had merely to see that the requirements of the law were fulfilled, and to use their own discretion as to whether any-particular hotel was needed. Inspector Atcheson said he did nbt consider that another hotel was needed on the Adelaideroad. The Tramway Hotel structure was an inferior one. ... i " ’ The Rev. Mr. Coffey quoted the remarks ■made use of by the chairman at the last sitting of the Court, regarding their being too many drinking-shops; and it being the duty of the Court to provide accommodation for travellers. He was startled with that last remark, because he could not find in the Licensing Act any clause which gave them discretion to issue as many licenses they pleased, merely to accommodate travellers. Mr. Crawford : We can license every house in town if we choose. The Rev. Mr. Coffey did not dispute their power, but contended that the Act did not contemplate any license being issued to provide lodging-houses, To say that they would grant licenses to houses which provided accommodation to boarders, was a serious misreading of the Act. Mr. Crawford : Your argument leads up to this : that we should license grog-shops, and not hotels. Mr. Coffey: No; you have tied your hands by declaring that there are too many grogshops. You provide accommodation for ledgers as if they were dangerous characters. I say, why not let the law of supply and demand regulate boarding-houses ; it regulates other shops. Mr. Coffey then went on to say that the vicinity of the Asylum was an objection to the hotel. There was no finality in the rule laid down by the Court, as a man had only to build a better hotel than any existing in the neighborhood, and he would get a license. Mr. Crawford: No; not at all. Mr. Fitz Gerald having replied, Mr. Crawford said the Court considered the application should be treated in the same manner as Mr. Duff’s. The bedroom accommodation was insuffi oient; hut so far as they could pledge themselves the Commissioners would grant the license on some future date if the bedroom accommodation were increased. The license would, for the present, be refused. The Court then adjourned.