WAIORONGOMAI HOTEL LICENSE

Te Aroha News, Volume XXVII, Issue 43340, 20 June 1908, Page 2

WAIORONGOMAI HOTEL LICENSE

REBUTTING EVIDENCE THE REMOVAL SANCTIONED The adjourned meeting of the Licensing Committee, was held iu the Court house, Paeroa, on Thursday last, when there were present : —Messrs Burgess, S.M (chairman), F. Alley, Trezise, T. Gavin, F. Cock, and Franklin. The principal business before the Committee was the application by Mr H Brunton to trausfer the license of the Waiorongomai Hotel, at Waiorongomai, to new premises, situated some threequarters of a mile nearer Te Aroha, fronting the main road, in place of the old premises which were burnt down some time ago.

At the previous sitting of the Court a numerously signed petition was lodged against the proposal to move the license and a good deal of evidence was taken in support of the petition. The Court decided to adjourn iu order to allow the licensee to call rebutting evidence, hence the present sitting. , Mr Thos Cotter (of Auckland) anl Mr Moresby appeared for the licensee in support of the application, and Mr Porritt appeared on behalf of the objectors. Mr Cotter, in opening the case, spoke of the old site and the hotel as it existed before being burnt down. He referred to the early days and the gold producing capabilities of the field, but things have changed since then, and the old hotel being burned down a better site was

selected whereon to erect the new build'ing. The fact of a license existing showed that the Committee recognised a licensed house was desirable. He drew attention to the evidence of the objectors. If an hotel is required, then the only question to be considered is the removal of the license and that only. Th*> evidence given by the objectors was wholly beside the point. Mr Cotter said it was the first time in his experience that objection had been entered to putting a licensed house further from a public school He could understand people not wanting a hotel placed in some out of the way comer, where it Avas next to impossible to place it under the control of the police quite

the"" reverse exists in the present instance. The building is brought out into the open and put on the corner of four cross roads, within public view. There was no gainsaying that connected or unconnected with the trafie, no reasonable person could conscientiously say the new site is not the best. The needs of the adjoining neighbours should be considered. Some of the objectors said they

would like to wipe out all licensed houses; there was no law to compel them to have anything to do with it- The persons to be considered are tho’e who desire the license, as long as everything Avas carried out in accordance with the rules and regulations of the country. The fact of the present site being away from the public school and out on the highway right under the eyes of the travelling public, which would prevent improper practices, Avas a strong point in its favour. Police supervision would be much easier, unfortunately, mining prospects did not turn out, and the old site is on Avhat might be termed a byroad. The neAV site is better for the convenience of the travelling public, and ) he would bring evidence to show that 1 the spot Avas frequently used as a resting place by drovers, before going on to the sales. It Avas practically recognised as a great convenience. Paddocking facilities were easily obtainable. .Some of the

objectors in the heat of their advocacy against the new site, did not stick to facts. He might mention one—Mr Peat —who stated he resided within helf-a* mile of the new site. Mr Burgess. Peat stated his house was a mile away, and his boundary fence half-a-mile away. Mr Cotter went on to say that Peat, who had a family of boys, did not like a public-house being put practically at his back door, (Mr Burgess remiuded Mr Cotter that the witness said his back door was a mile away). Mr Cotter continuing said it appeared as if his zeal outran the oath taken. If he had been consistent he should have objected to the license being granted at all.

The Bench : What Mr Peat objected to was the hotel being being brought a mile nearer his home. Mr Cotter said he might just as well object to the Wnitemata Harbour being near his private residence in Auckland. It avus a fanciful objection, and no real reason in it at all. He respectfully sub- | mitted that the Committee Avould, for the benefit of the people and the travelling public generally, allow the house to be licensed where it is most required and urgently required—in that district. There was not a boarding in the place, and no means of accommodation whatever. Since the hotel had been destroyed by fire the persons lmng in the neighbourhood had been pestered for accommodation, meals, i shako doAvns, etc. Mr Cotter handed in plans of the new hotel —to cost £1,(500, Tho building was practically finished. 1 Ilis Worship could see that by spending so much it was cogent piece of evidence that, tho, house is required. (Bench : Evidently the. OAvner’s opinion). He trusted the Committee would sanction the removal as applied for. Francis Malde (sworn) stated he knew the site and visited the place yesterday. The house is almost complete inside, and aff rds much better accommodation than tho old one. It is about three-quarters of a mile nearer Te Aroha, on the main roat, and better for police supervision. Ho would pass the hotel when visiting tho out districts, whereas with tho old site he would have to go specially, The neighbouring hotel, at Waihou, was somewhat in a similar position to the new site, and he never had any complaints about the Waihou hotel—Considered it better to have the hotel away from the school, The ne\v site was better for the travelling public from tho police poiut of view and in fact every way. By Mr Porritt: Cons dered there is more settlement in the district now than has been the case for years, travellers passing backwards and forwards to Mataumta, Manawaru, Gordon, Waharoa, and the East Coast. He did not consider there Avas ample accommodation in Te Aroha. He had seen the boardinghouses and hotels full up. By Colter : Certainly he considered the new site the most convenient for the travelling public. Robert Nelson (srvorn) stated: He was a farmer, living on the corner immediately opposite the now site, and the nearest resident to the hotel, knew both old and new sites. In his opinion the new site is the best for the travelling public and those requiring hotel accom modation He had lived on the same corner for seventeen years, during which I scores of people, swags-men, etc., had , called at his house asking for aceommo< dation, people on the way to and from Poverty Bay, Matamata, Cambridge, :

Hamilton,, etc: Oocasionilly. to had given them shelter, It the moved to the new site it wo ' i,a objectionable , to anyone, like to see it there. rn By Mr Porritt: There had increase in the travelling public ®_ ,■£ Mostly swagmen called for aCCOIII , i tion. Did not think this an unusual thing in a farming district. Som come through Te Aroha ; they 0 have got accommodation in Te Ar they desired. . . * By Cotter: The old site is out ot main line of traffic. The new Bite l better for the convenience of the trav ling public. , „ , A T. F- Holt (sworn) stated: He had resided at Waiorongomai for seven or eight years and had been postmaster lor about three years. He lived opposite the old site and knew the new One* HO considered, under the present conditions, the new site iis the best of the two* In his opinion there was no disadvantage in having a well-conducted hotel near a public school. Did not see any objection by anyone to removal from one site to another. Since old hotel burned .down he had frequently been asked to accommodate persons at his house. There isiiio boarding-house at Waiorongomai. By Porritt: People who .called we visitors to Waiorongomai township. -Renewal on old site would probably meet their requirements. The new fate was further away from his house. He was. not anxious one way or another. -Hew site would suit travelling public bet • The new site was very little furthor. away from the mines than the old one. lnereas in traffie of late, owing to better mining prospects. The settlers about were perfectly indifferent as to where the ; hotel should be. . , , , By Mr Cotter: In new site less chance of Sunday trading and late hours. By Mr Cock: Do not think removal of license will have a demoralising effect Conte, fflyLewis, H. W. Dawson, T. P. Vuglar, ad , gave evidence in support of the removal to new site, expressing their opinion tnat it would be better for the travelling public and all concerned. 1 . .. , . Mr Gavin said that after heating the I evidence of those for and against, he rel mained of the same opinion viz., that it was far better for all concerned to bring ; a public-house out*in the open, bo to ' speak, where everyone could see what was going on. He proposed that the removal , be granted. . , . , Seconded by Mr Trenzeand carried .