The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR P.M. Resurrexi. MONDAY, JULY 3, 1882.

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4213, 3 July 1882, Page 2

The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR P.M. Resurrexi. MONDAY, JULY 3, 1882.

If anything were wanting to demonstrate that enthusiasts and " faddj " men, such as rabid teetotallers or Grey-at-any-price folk, are not the class of persons calculated to edit impartially a daily journal, professing to be the organ owned by the inhabitants of the district, and reflecting their views—that the faot of possessing these crotchets and feeling bound to parade and support them at all times and on all occasions, in season and out of season, operates so powerfully hb to hinder them exercising the judicial mind—the leader in this morning's Advertiser abusing the Licensing Commissioners of the Central District in unmeasured terms, is more than ample to supply the deficiency. Without traversing our contemporary's distortions, we shall confine ourselves to a brief outline of the facts. Some time ago, before the present Licensing Act came into operation, Mr Ensor, the licensee at that time of the Post Office Hotel, who had conducted the house j creditably for several years, had a dis- | pute with the proprietor, Mr Ehrenfried, I which resulted in his leaving it, and i erectiDg a fine building opposite the pre~ 1 mises which he had vacated with the | hope of obtaining a license therefor; in faot, we are informed that there was a tacit understanding that he was to receive one. In order to understand the hardship of the position, we must take cognizance of the, to our mind, unfair position the law places intending publicans in. They have to build their house, possessing certain accommodationXrequired by the Act, with the risk of the application for a license being refused always impending, for the Beach could not grant a license for a house not already erected. The whole proceeding is wrong in principle. It should be competent for the persons purposing to enter upon business to appear, before the Court, and demand an j answer to the question, "If I build a ! bouse, fulfilling all the requirements of the law, will you grant me a license?" ! However, Mr Ensor built his house and

was refused a license. His expenditure was, to a large extent, useless, although we ' have reason to believe that he had good grounds before he commenced building, for thinking the license would be granted. Now we get to closer quarters. Mr Ensor's premises -are situated on the boundary line between the Middle and South Wards, and, unfortunately for him, the wards were chosen as the boundaries of the licensing districts, the result being that Mr Erisdr's premises were in no] man's land, he was a sort of nobody's j child. But although neither of the licensing bodies would or could own him, the Borough had no such scruples when their money was required, be was rated for the Middle Ward, in which the greater portion of his house is situated. The citizens of the Central Licensing District, which in other words is the Middle Ward, authorise by a majority of 69 to 9, I the Commissioners chosen by them to grant further licenses, and to this body Mr Ensor applied. A week ago he was informed by them that if he moved his house into, the Central District a license would be granted. They were guided by this consideration, no doubt: This man's < premises are practically, if not technically within our district, and the citizens are in favor of increased hotel accommodation, therefore it is our duty to grant the license. But as his house is not in the distriot, according to law, he must either shift bis premises entirely into it, or possibly the boundary will, as the applicant's counsel assures us it will, be altered so as to include the house within our jurisdiction. The next that is heard of the matter is at the Borough Council, when an application by Mr Ensor that the boundaries of the wards might be so altered a*> to bring his premises completely within one of them, and requesting that it should be the Middle Ward, was read. The request was acceeded to, Cr Speight being the only dissentient. Cr Speight urged with much force, that it was no part of tbe Council's duty to grant people's licenses, and that if Mr Ensor's license had not been at stake the application would not have been heard of at that time. Other councillors replied that that might be so, but the boundaries are not now in accordance with the original intention, and what better opportunity of righting a wrong than when a rate* payer is suffering a hardship through that wrong ? Cr McGowan, who was one of the designers of the wards,showed that it was at first intended that the boundary should go up the middle of Mary street, and along Rolleston street. The Act says that the wards may be the boundaries of the licensing districts if convenient, but if the Borough had been asked, it could surely not have replied that for the line to pass through people's property, as it does through Mr Ensor's, was convenient. We have not space to dwell longer upon the matter, but the foregoing is a fairly correct explanation of the subject, and very different to that account, redolent of red herring, which our esteemed contemporary treats his readers to this morning. .