The Waiorongomai Hotel.

Te Aroha News, Volume XXVII, Issue 43336, 11 June 1908, Page 3

The Waiorongomai Hotel.

PROPOSAL ToiIOVE TO NEW SITE -OPPOSITION TO TRANSFER.

At the meeting of the Licensing Committee . at' j'Paeroa an application ■was made by Mr H. Brunton to transfer the license of the iWaiorongomai Hotel at ‘Waioroagomai to new premises, a short distance from the old premises,which were-burnt down some time ago. •Mr Moresby, appeared for the licensee ill support of the application. A petition was lodged against the proposal to move the' license, and Mr Perritt appeared onbehalf the petitioners. Mr Moresby drew attention to the manner in which the petition was drawn, up, saying he did, not think there was a name on the petition that complied with the statue. '' Particulars should be given of the distance petitioners resided from the hotel, and -this was not given, nor was, a statement made, that petitioners were over 21 years of age. Mr Porritt said the petition set out that those signing it were adults. The-Magistrate said the petition said “ ratepayers or male or female adults.” Whiph were the ratepayers, and which were the adults ? '

Mr Porrifct said the petitioners had followed the form given in the Act. He admitted that,they did not state how far away from the hotel they resided, but

they all gave their place of residence. / The magistrate said that in his opinion the requirements of the statue, in regard to petitions of this kind had not been complied with. It was the duty of the Committee to strike off the names which did not comply with the law, and not one of the names bad the necessary comKnee., It was a pity that the petitioners not taken legal advice in drawing up the petition, but it would be still open for any of, the residents in the locality to object personally. . Mr Porritfc said he recognised that

fact, , and a large number of residents were present to put the matter personally before the Committee. They did not 'object to the license ; what they objected to was having an hotel placed in their midst—they did not want it. After the adjournment the evidence of the objectors was taken as follows : H. Peat said his residence was within half a mile of ihe proposed site of the ‘WaiOrongOmai Hotel, and he objected to the license being 1 transferred to that site, as an hotel in that, locality was only of use'to those travelling through from Te Aroha. Witness also objected' to this site, as he’ had a family of boys and did not wish to have an hotel practically at his back dpoirl .His house was about half a mile from' the proposed site. He did not'think that there was any likelihood of the shifting of the license being of any benefit to boarders. 1 He knew some time ago that the; license was likely to be saifted, or.an application being made for the transfer of that license. He did not consider that, any provision for boarders need lie wade when another hotel is situated 'witojjh-a> mile of the proposed site. The license need not be shifted, as it was not necessary, and it was “ out of the way.” For the publican’s benefit the license should, be shifted to the proposed *ite, but he considered that it would be better to have it at the old site, as it was. “out of the road.”

Thomas Ferguson, a resident in the vicinity of the proposed site, said that his property was about a mile 1 from the proposed site.. The population was to a cer- . tain 1 extent,..scattered. There were only four settlers between his place and the proposed site. He objected to the removal of the license, as he did not think it required, inasmuch as it was likely to be a temptation to passers-by from Te Aroha. : He was a teetotaller and prohibitionist.; iHe signed the petition objecting to the transfer of the license. He objected to the transfer, as an hotel On the proposed site was likely to be a place of temptation. He was of opinjoc that an hotel nearthe public school would be a menance, and would be agreeable to moving an hotel from the vicinity of the public school. The proposed site was further away from the school than the old site. ; . .

Bev. Dukes, Methodist Minister for the Te Aroha circuit, said that he had been a resident of the district for a good number of years. He travelled the road on an average of twice a week, and had only met a vehicle about twice out of every twelve times when on the road. The hotel accommodation in Te Aroha was more than sufficient for the requirements of: the district. An hotel at Waiorongomai was / not within the radius of the supervision of the Te Aroha police. A number of people in the vicinity of the proposed site were prepared to leave their farms sooner than subject their children to the influence of the hotels. He was not, prepared to state whether he was a prohibitionist or otherwise. The people! who were prepared to leave the district sooner than: ■ live nearer an hotel live within a mile and a-half of the proposed site. 4 ln regard to the position of the old and the proposed one, the proposed one was further away from the public school, as the old one was only 100 yards away, i;; ; ; ,\V, . George Devey said he personally had not been interested in the objection to the removal of the license. He lived in Te Aroha,but had conducted a Sunday School in Waiorongomai each Sunday for ' the past 25 years. There was a good deal - of traffic on the road leading past the proposed site. Beyond,the traffic by the local people oh that road there was very little. He would like to stop the liquor traffio.J At this stage Mr Porritt notified that there were about 35 more witnesses to be called for the objectors. Two or three witnesses • came forward and gave evidence which was to a certain extent corroborative, and Mr Porritt, for the objectors and witnesses, said that all the ryvidence was on similar lines; _ Mr Moresby, for the licensee, said that the ncensee admitted that no hotel should be put down at a man’s back door, but the only house which could be said to be in the vicinity was a mile and a-quarter away. He stated that the proposed site was at the junction of four cross roads, which was the proper site for an hotel. After of about a quarter of an hour, the committee were of opinion . that the licensee should be allowed to call rebutting evidence, and therefore an adjournment for a fortnight was granted. —Ohinemtiii Gazette.