Thames Central Licensing Committee.

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4278, 16 September 1882, Page 2

Thames Central Licensing Committee.

Before Mr E. T. Wildman (Chairman), and Klevi W. Calder, and. Mr Ji!Mi Mennie, Commissioners. An adjourned meeting of the Committee was held at the Court house to-day at noon. In reply to Mr Miller, the Chairman said this was an adjournment t>f the annual and quarterly meetings. ' "■'■;■■ EES. BNSQB'S LICENSE. Mr Brassey applied 'for the Court to confirm the license already granted to Mr TCnsor. Mr Miller opposed, and understood that the license had not been granted. The Clerk of the Court read the minutes of a previous meeting guaranteeing the issue of the certificate if certain conditions were complied with. Mr. Lindsay Jackson, surveyor, gave evidence to show that the house had been shifted into the Central District. •' Mr Miller cross-examined the witness with a view to proving that about lft lOin. of the front of the house are still in the South District, and that the entrance to the bar is in that district. Sergt. O'Grady deposed to having examined the house, and that it was well furnished, and suitable for a comfortable hotel. The applicant is a, respectable man. Wm. Twentyman, carpenter, examined by Mr Miller, deposed that he thought the house was 30ft wide, but he never Measured it. Mr Miller contended that the application must fail—Firstly, because the license could not be granted at an adjourned meeting, and quoted clause 55 of the of the Licensing Act, which reads— " After the end of the month of December next, new publicans' licenses, New Zealand wine licenses, accommodation licenses, accommodation licenses, and bottle licenses shall be granted only at the annual licensing to be held in the month of June in each year." Secondly because there was no main entrance to

the bar in the district, consequently the bar would be beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. He quoted clause 38 as follows—"No publican's license shall be granted in any borough unless such house shall have a front or principal entrance separate from and in addition to the entrance to the bar or to the place where liquors not to be drunk on the premises are sold." Mr Brassey, replying, contended tbat j this was a double meeting—it was. the! quarterly meeting, also the annual meeting, which had been adjourned sine die. The Act stipulates that there must be two entrances to a bar, a private one and a public one, in boroughs, but nothing was| said about districts. The blocks of the' building were in the Central Ward, and only the door was in the South District. Mr Ensor could not move his house | further because of a neighbour's fence. The learned counsel contended that the house was substantially in the Central District. The Commissioners retired for a few minutes, and upon returning into Court the Chairman said the license had been granted at the annual meeting, and this was virtually an adjournment of that meeting. The conditions appeared to have been carried out to all iutents and purposes, and the license would therefore be granted. j Mr Allom having raised the question as to the fee payable, the Commissioners • ruled that as the license was granted at the annual meeting it dates from then, and the full fee of £40 must be paid. This concluded the business of the Court. . .