TEMUKA LICENSING COMMITTEE

Temuka Leader, Issue 2372, 21 June 1892, Page 3

TEMUKA LICENSING COMMITTEE

The adjourned meeting of the above was held at the Courthouse, Temuka, on Monday at noon. Present —Messrs Talbot (chairman), S. Clinch, W. G. Aspinall, and M. Quinn. After routine business, Inspecting Constable Bourke reported in connection with the Temuka Hotel that the gates had been replaced by new ones, and portion of the fence had been repaired. Nothing had yet been done to the stabling, but a man was at work, and the licensee had had promised to have the remainder of the repairs completed. The licensee, who was present, said the man employed had instructions to go on until the whole of the work was completed. Mr Aspinall asked if the stabling was to be repaired. The licensee replied in the affirmative. Mr Quinn drew attention to the fact that eight or nine days had elapsed. The constable said a man had been employed the whole time, and there was every reason to believe all needful repairs would be carried out. In reply to the chairman, the licensee said the whole of the work would be completed in about seven days. In the case of the Royal Hotel, the licensee said he had no idea there was anything against the house. The unoccupied rooms were used for storage, except one that was connected with the fire-escape and two others which were Used for shake-downs. The back buildings were the property of the landlord, who might interfere if he (the licensee) removed them. The yard had been done up. The furniture was all new, and put in since he had taken the hotel. The chairman drew attention to the charge against the licensee himself. The licensee said if there were a complaint against him in that respect the police would have reported him. They had not done so. Constable Bourke was prepared to give evidence to the contrary, and, being sworn, said, the house was badly conducted, frequented by drunkards, and on Sundays he had noticed drunken men about. He had cautioned the licensee, who had promised to amend. He had been waiting for an opportunity to bring a charge against the house, but could not rely upon the evidence available. There had been one or two instances on Sundays of drinking going on. To Mr Quinn : Did not enter the hotel on the Sundays complained of. The constable: Had looked out for some person who would give reliable evidence. The licensee said the constable had complained of a person visiting the Army who was in liquor, and said that it must have been obtained at his hotel. Constable Egan, sworn, said that twelve months ago Constable Morton exhausted all his means to obtain a conviction. There were one or two cases brought, but no conviction recorded. To Constable Bourke: There were generally one or two loafers hanging around. By Mr Quinn : Were there cases on Sundays that led you to inspect this hotel more than others 1 The witness: Had gone in once or twice when Constable Morton was on leave, but saw nothing very unusual. One or two drunks were run in, but the evidence was not sufficient to convict, although it was believed they obtained liquor at the Royal. The committee adjourned, and, on resuming, the chairman said in connection with the Temuka Hotel the bench would be satisfied if the work was completed within the time mentioned, and on those conditions the license would be granted. The inspector would be asked to report upon the same. The licensee thanked the committee. The chairman instructed the inspecting constable to report upon the Wallingford Hotel, the fences of which were to be repaired. In regard to the Royal Hotel, the bench considered that the charge against the house of being insufficiently furnished was admitted by the licensee. They did not consider the police report regarding drunkenness sustained. There was no specific charge, and they could not refuse the license on that ground. On the other hand, of their own knowledge they conJllfendered the house was not properly kept, *nnd they had decided not to renew the license to Mr McAteer. It was open for him to apply for an adjournment for seven days, or not more than fourteen days, when he could bring further evidence should he desire to do so. The licensee applied for, and was granted, an adjournment for seven days. This concluded the business.