LICENLING COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume X, Issue 762, 21 June 1877, Page 2

LICENLING COURT, CAMBRIDGE.

Cambridge, June 14, 1877.

Presant: W N Searancke (Chairman), 8 » Gjjaham, and John Commissioners. ■. _

made for renewals of licenses.

Mr .Kirkwool's National Hotsl, twelve o'clock license.

Mr Hose, Duke of Cambridge Hotel, twelve o'clock license. Mr He .vitb's Masonic Hotel, ten o'clock license.

. Mr R Parr applied for a license for Mr Hewitt's new house, to be called the Criterion Hotel, twelve o'clock liosnse. Mr Hesketh, with Mr Hay, appeared to support the National, the Duke' of .Cambridge, and the Masonic. Mr Macdonald and Mr O'-Neil represented Mr Hewitt, and nominally Mr Parr. The building used as a Court House was crowded from the start to the close, so many rumours had been afloat respect* ing the merits of the Criterion, and the demarita of the Masonic, and the de. termination of the 'landed' to destroy the Hotel of the ' landless ' in the district This designation arose out of two petitions presented to the Court, which the Chairman said wsre the petitions of the ' landed and the landless.' The Commissioners called Mr Kirkwood, aud after some consultation, gave a license for ten o'clock. There was no opposition. The houßO favourably reported by tforgt Grreeu. Mr Bose was next called, and his license renewed without opposition. .The next in, order was Mr Parr's application for a license for the Criterion. Mr Macdouald (tor Mr Whitaker) and Mr O'lSieil appeared in support. They also intimated that thoy were instructed to support th'o application for a license for the Masonic Hotel. Tlie Court consented to Mr v Heskelk's application to be allowed to represent the landlord, Mr Clements, for the Masonic Hotel.

Considerable discussion here ensued between the legal gentlemen. Mr Maedouald positively refusing to act for the Masonic, if hia 'learned friend' were so much as allowed to say a biugle word for the poor old * rotten, leaky and word out Masonic.'

The Court, after some coiv aoufced to Mr Hesketh's application, and adjourned for lunch.

The Court re-ass-'mbled at 2 p m, and the room waq crowded, „

whpn ff "'*"PpHoafcioa was first heard, SSL* Tw Tery ,* by "W*My Mr dft no le 8» l application 'for a : l»? tt TV ' d been m Everyone felt fluohjogic oH tm,L»lifcy if thequeatioa, the case for appliotnt was sat Kami™ the breatlesa silked p f the Court. #~.*W discussion; between the Com. missioned took place, when the Chairman announced that the Court took the application ,aa oorr eot. 1 iffiffi APPLICATION FOR THE MASONIC Was next called. Mr Maodonald refused to say a word in support. Mr Heskefjfi? _j»fc therefore, had to conduct the case, a call was made for the objectors. Thr<& witnesses gave evidence, Mr CJaike. MS SL-. to orrest and Mr JFergusson. - Mr Clarke intimated that his frequent vmts to the Hotel enabled him to tnat it was gone everywhere! rotten! --~ 1 rotten! and utterly unfitfor the advanced state of civilisation in*Canibridge. '-v*. gave similar avidence, and 80 did Mr ilergusson. - V£his ended the case for the opposition. -Ineaq witnesses represented seventeen .who had signed a petition, corresponding with the evidence they had given, ' 0a examining the petition, the Chairman that eight names were outside the Licensing District of CamD'ldge, and only one within three miles of the township, and had not been in the district a nv.mth when he signed it. Another petition was then introduced, tor the defence containing upwards of sixty signatures of persons living in and around the- township. Mr Hesketh proved that- the Chairman and Mr Graham had passed the house over three years since when it was let to Mr Hewitt, as in every way fitted to . meet iihe wants of the district. A lease was then given to Mr Hewitt for three years, clauses of which were read, showing that the owner was not' responsible, the tenant covenanting to keep in a proper stale of repair. To show that the owner was alive to his own interest, and the growing want of the district, Mr Vialou, of Hainilton, had been instructed to make such plans and Bpeoifioafcioi.B ts would make it a farst-class hotel. Mr Hewitt refused to albw him to go over the premises, but he exhibited a frontage plan of what Mr Clements intended to build. At the coclusion of -the case, Mr Clarke asked the Court, if it had not been a condition when the license was renewed , f y ea "» »go, that Mr Clements had i pledged to build a first-class hotel. This was answered in the negative, both.by the Chan-man and Mr Graham. Many" persons had been led to beiieve that Mr Ciements had obtained the license under fals j pretences, but Mr Hewitt's lease, and the Courts answer to Mr Clarke, proved that the old Masonic was more sinned against than sinning. The Court was cleared for a short time, announcing on returning that it had decided to give a license to each house. Six ironths was allowed Mr Clement s to make the improvements he had so long contemplated. - . Mr Mesketh moved application for a reduction in the lid-, using fee to'thirty pounds. . ~ The Court decided to recommend it. This concluded the great licensing tournament so long looked for in Cambridge. —CORBESPONDEHT.