THE HOTEL COMMONWEALTH.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIV, Issue 168, 12 June 1902, Page 2

THE HOTEL COMMONWEALTH.

DECISION OF THIS LIUENSING ! BENCH. j LICENSE GRANTED. | I At 2 p.m. on Wednesday Mr H, VV. ; Brabant, S.M., silting as a Licensing Comnri'.tie, gave his division on thoj application made by Jtrem ah O'Diis-; coll for a license for the Ho'.ei Cam- i monwealth. The decision was as fol-j lows:

After referring formally t j the qpoi ing of the case Mr Brabant coutinutd A license for this building was grant* i at the annual meeting last year by M Stanford, S.M., acting as a Luenbin; Committee, and tbe building w.t opened as an hole'. After the grant o iha license certain gntlemen <f tb Prohibitionist party took proceeding iu the Supreme Cjurt and the Court, o Appeal. I need not r< fer to this litiga tion further than to say that finul'y thi Uourt of Appeal issued a writ of car iiorari to quash the licorse, and tin hotel waß therefore shut up. Applica tion is cow made for a nw demise The applicant has complied wi li tin forms necis-ary for him to obtain s license; the houße h s 31 rooms ex elusive of those required by bis family the requirements of Section 38 of tin Licensing Act have been compliet with; the bu lding is providrd wi'l fire escapes and other conveniences, au< I am satisfied that it is a suitable cm for au hotel for tliH accommodation o travt'll-jis. The npplicint h s file: two coitifi.ates of personal ntn'Si signtd by Stipendiary iTn-i last licencing p.ll decided that thi number of licenses existing in the dis tncfc should contnue. Tho ixs f .iDj number was then thirteen. Site then the license which had for Bom> years been granted to the '■ Vilkgi Inn" at Bell Block, in the distant, wa allowed to lapse, aiid there are cov twelve licdnses in existence. There i no qunstiun that this commi tee hai the power to graut another licat s ', tb number now existing bung u'.der tb number existing at the time «f thi poll. . That question was expro-sly da cided in one i f the cases in the Suprerm Court in refeence to tlw sime house [Gaukrodger v. Stanford, in GazeU Law Reports, 390]. By sectiun 75 o the Licensing Act, 1881, the Lic-nsinj Committee is directed t> tx rcis-) i' discretion in granting a licjns>e, and i not bound to grant it ra' rely becausi the requiiements of the law a* to ac commodation and personal fi n<si o the applicant have been fulfiled unl a iu its opinion there is a necessity foi the public house for the sa'e of liquors for which the application is mad.' Objection may betaken to the granting of a license on the ground thtt it is nut required in the neighbourhood [sc'.ioi. 62 (3)] An objection on this ground has been filed by the Rev. Willian R, Woo'ley and fifteen other el etors. Thot.o objectors had retained Mr Atkinson, of Wellington, to appear on their behalf, but in his absence four of them, the Rev. Serpell and Messrs Gmkrodger, R. W. Neal aad Hal Qoodacre, appearel in person to oppo e the granting of the licsnae. The question I have to de.ido (sitting ss a a L : censing Committee, under section 21 of the Licensing Act of 1895) is whether tbe licensing of the house is required in the neighbourhood. The meaning of the words " required in the neighbourhood " his baen several times discussed in the Supreme Court In the case Isitt v. Taylor, the late Chief Juetice Prendergast said; " The committee have to iuquire ani judicially decide whether, upon a view of iill tin circumstaaces, tbe license is required in the neighbourhood in which the premises are" [x. New Zealand Law Reports, 658 ] In Isitt v. Quill, Mr Justice Richmond said : "Tho du'oy of the committee is to hear and deiermiiip, upon evidence, what licenses are required and ought to be granted " [xi. New Z.-aland Law Rsports, 248 ] In the esse Isitt v. Taylor, Mr Justice Williams said : " The commit'ee, before deciding any particular cas , ought to consider what is to ba gaid on Loth sidi, and do their best to come to a just conclu-ion" [x. New Z aland Law Report?, 660] Mr B/abant tbx-n reviewed the evidence givea in tbe present CJS9. The facts, ho said, proved by witnesses called by counsel fer the applicant —so far as they can be regarded as facts as distingu ; shed from opinions are: That the papulation of the borough, and the number of the travelling ! public (both residents leaving and i visitors coming to New Plymouth) has j largely increased ef late yeirs ; that the number of bote s in the borough has for thirteen years past been six ; that the hotel accommodation in tho borough is insufficient, to supply the requirements of the travelling public, this being particularly the case in summer and at holiday times ; that travellers have for some considerable time past frequently bsen unable to obtain accomrnod*tion at the existing hotels, and have lud occasionally to sleep on " shakedowns " in private houses and other places, such as halls and stables; thac the "Hot-l Commonwealth" is situated immediately opposite the railway station, and is particularly convenient for persons arriving by steamers in the errly morning and requiring refreshments and stimulants after a sea voyage, a'so for persons starting by early trains and late steamers; that the other hotel aicoramodation in the neighbaurhood is further off trie station, and mcivovor has proved insufficimt for the accommodation of travellers ; and that theie is no refreshment room at the railway station. As a matter of opinion all the witnesses for the applicant consider the hotel required in the neighbourhood. . . , For the objectors Rev. Serpell hid stated that he did not think, i evt'ri with the Hotel Commonwealth, j that th*rd would be too much hotel accommodation ic the town, but that' what he aiid his congregation objected j to was aidititional licenses for tho sale of liquor, which wore bad for the young men of the town. Mr Ntal, another objector, admitted that more accommodation was needed, bus considered there wero enough facilities for obtaining drink. Mr Berry was of opinion thai there were plenty of places for obtaining liquor, and he had not had any Jifficul y in getting ho:el uccoirruioJ .-- tioj for bis friends. Ho did uot objecl; to this licence, but to its being substituted for another wh'.ch he considered rncrssary. Serge uit Haddrell lad stated that he had inserted iu his :eporban objection to the lie nsa hocjuso ae considered it- the duty of the police io report that tin plao3 was not rt]uiiv)d, so that there might be a proper nquiry. It was said by Mr Jusi'.'e Richmond, in the old case of Hamiltoc '. Eraser [v. New Law Rejortt*, s]: " The question whether a >articular house for the sale of l.quor s wanted or not is and must remain . matter of opinion and not of ascer•duable fact, aiid meu will diilor on it xtu-mely." Mr Simuel contended' hat ,tha a «vid«ncu of thou* witnesses

who were Pomibitio'i'sta abound u t ba rrliiid tn, owiuij to prejudice, and ho quoted authority for tha*; contention. My apinion is that the evidence of not only Prohibitionist?, but of those opposed to them is v*' y hko!y to be coloured by their respective opinions on tha qu3stion of local option; but in the present case these corihidiiatiouH msd u'jfi ba gininto. Tire evidence, in my opinio i, does not require weighing ; it in overwhelming in favour of the applicant's contention that the house is required, b >th as a matter of t;wt an I of "pinion. Tlvj objectors object to 'he sal* of liquor generally la'.her <h:ui to this particular hous». I can only, on the evidence, decide to gr.int 'he cer ifiuate for a license, as from Is'. July next. In reply to the Banc v i, Sergeant ttuddrell s»il the provision of fire escapes was satisfactory. Oi Mr Samuel's application an #xt'n*ion nf the license to 11 o'clock was

granted. This was all the bubines?, and the Court adjourned.