[December 8, 1881 – New Zealand Herald] The quarterly meeting of the above Licensing Court was held at noon yesterday, at the Court-house, Onehunga, and was composed of Mr. J. E. Macdonald, R.M., Chairman, and Messrs. James Robertson, J. D. Jackson, and Thomas Paton, Commissioners. The principal business of the Bench was to consider an application lodged by Samuel Stephenson for a new license for a new house, to be called the Mount Albert Hotel.
A great deal of interest was manifested in the proceedings. About twenty of the leading residents in Mount Albert appeared in Court in the character of objectors. Mr. E. Hesketh (Hesketh and Richmond) appeared in support of the application, instructed by Mr. Alexander, and Mr. E. K. Tyler appeared for all the objectors. The application was signed by Messrs. J. Rogan, James Bound, Charles Turk, H. H. Martin, Mark Woodward, R. C. Greenwood, H. S. Wallace, Wm. Motion, Frederick Young, and J. H. Daubeney.
Eleven objections in writing were lodged, and the following generally may be taken as the grounds of objection:-
I. That there was no necessity for such a place in the district.
2. That the house would prove a nuisance, because of the number of loafing and drunken men who would be drawn thither, as well as the likelihood of creating a similar class in the district.
3. That the presence of drunken and dissolute characters would be detrimental to the morals of the children and young people in the district.
4. There are no commercial or business men visiting the district who would be likely to require the accommodation usually supposed to be offered by such a place.
5. Such a house would only prove a temptation to such as are weak minded to indulge too freely in “the accursed thing.”
6. As a new Licensing Act has been passed by the Assembly, and is now only awaiting the proclamation of the districts by the Governor, no new license should be granted till the residents had an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the subject under the Act.
There were one or two other grounds of objection, but these were the principal, and the chief objectors were the Rev. Mr. Haseldean, Messrs. C. B. Stone, James N. Ward, Thomas Wallace, James Reid, Thomas Allen, J. Tonson Garlick, Edward Allen, and Mrs. Emma Hastie, and Messrs. Allan Waterhouse and Frederick Battley.
Mr. Hesketh said there was an application by Mr. Stephenson for a new license for a new house, and it was now before the Court, and the necessity for such a house was certified to by 10 persons residing in the immediate neighbourhood, also certifying that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a license, and he therefore asked that the license should be granted.
Mr. Tyler said he had to take a preliminary objection, which, if sustained, would dispose of the case in a few moments. It was this, that the Court could not grant the license applied for because the Licensing Act, 1881, precluded the Court from granting the application. Section 1 of the Act stated that it came into force on the Ist of October. By the 45th section of that Act they found that from and after the date of that Act coming into force no new publican’s license or bottle licenses could be granted, except a poll of the residents in the district was taken, as required by Section 47. It was within the judicial knowledge of the chairman that no such poll had been taken, and therefore the Court could not grant the license.
Mr. Hesketh said this argument raised the whole question of whether the powers of the old statute were repealed, so far as the granting of new licenses were concerned. He quoted the repealing clause, and also sections 6 and 7 of the Act as bearing on the question, especially the latter portion of clause 7, which provided for existing Acts and commissions remaining in force until the new districts under the new Act had been proclaimed.
Mr. Tyler said the ground taken by Mr. Hesketh was cut from under his feet by clause 46. The time for doing some of the things required by this Act had gone by. The determination of the minds of the residents was to be taken some time in 1882, but the Legislation had determined that local option should be brought into force, and the object was that no new licenses should be issued except by the vote of the ratepayers. For that purpose the Act stated that from and after the date of this Act coming into operation (the Ist of October) these things shall take place, not from and after the creation of new districts or the abolishing of old districts, but from and after the Ist of October local option shall be the law. Section 7 kept the old Act in force for certain purposes, but the whole Act must be read together, and section 45 was distinct on the subject.
The Chairman said one of the commissioners was of opinion that the new Act did not apply, and the other two had left it to him to express their opinion. It was perfectly clear to him that the new Act did not apply, for although section 45 said that no new license shall be granted, except under certain conditions, that section was not in force till the districts were proclaimed. Section 23, which was almost similar in terms, provided that no renewal or transfer of a license should be granted, except under like circumstances. His opinion was that they were not ruled by section 45 or section 28, and that they had no force until the districts were proclaimed, nor had any other portions of the Act, except clauses 2, 6, and 7, which were specially provided tor.
Mr. Tyler said he had another objection to urge, and that was that one of the persons purporting to sign the certificate did not sign it. It was signed by his wife.
The Chairman asked Mr. Hesketh what would be the result supposing one of the signatures was a forgery?
Mr. Hesketh replied that then he should be out of Court.
Mr. Tyler said the Act provided that the certificate must be signed by ten householders, but here they had only nine. James Bound, whose name was to the certificate, did not, he was informed, sign it, but it was signed by his wife.
Mr. Tyler called Mr. Stephenson, who was sworn. He deposed : I am the applicant in this case, and that document (produced) is my application in duplicate. I obtained the signatures personally. The signature “James Bound” was signed by himself in my presence a short time previous to the application being sent in. He saw Mr. Bound himself, not by his wife. His wife was there when he signed it.
By Mr. Hesketh: Mrs. Bound did sign a document in her husband’s presence, but it was not one of those applications. It was a form of application, but it was not on this account that the new application was drawn up and signed.
James Bound deposed that he was a baker at Mount Albert, and knew the applicant, who came to him and asked him to sign a document. He came first about three months ago, and again on a subsequent occasion. He signed a document on the second occasion. The signature to one of the documents was his; the other he thought was not. He had two or three talks with Mr. Garlick, but did not tell him he did not sign this application, nor did he say that he need not be subpoenaed that he would come out and swear to the facts.
By the Bench: He only signed on one occasion, and only recollected signing one document. The witness was confounded with his two signatures and two signatures of his wife’s.
To Mr. Hesketh: He had been summoned to attend here by Mr. Garlick.
J. Tonson Garlick deposed that he drew up at Mr. Bound’s shop on the 30th of November. He came to the shop door, and witness asked him how he signed Stephenson’s application. He said it was all done in a minute—his wife signed it. Witness asked him if it was with his knowledge and consent. He evaded the question, and said he thought a public-house would be a good thing. When witness served the subpoena on him, he said he did not think he could do him any good.
To the Bench: The witness was his baker, and he was astonished at his having signed such a document, but he did not question him with the right to control him. He had asked the same question of others.
The question was then decided on the facts.
Mr. Hesketh said the building was a very good one, and when finished would cost not less than £1200, besides which there would be stabling, &c. Mr. Stephenson had experience as a publican, he had adventured a large amount of capital, and having received encouragement he proceeded to erect the building. The house was on the New North Road, and was three miles from the nearest public house, on the Auckland side. The next hotel on the other side, the Whau, was two miles distant. That was some grounds for advancing the views of its necessity. It was close to the railway station, and persons coming to the Station or Public-hall required some place to leave their horses. At the corner of the road was the stand for the Mount Albert omnibus.
Mr. Battley deposed that he resided about three-quarters of a mile from the site of the house for which the license was applied. He objected to the granting of the license on general grounds; that it was not required; it was not a natural depot, and on specific grounds, that it would tend to demoralise the young people in the neighbourhood, and be detrimental to the interests of the district.
The great bulk of the resident householders objected. There were no hotels near the site than the Eden Vine and the Whau, except Edgecumbe’s, which was on a different road. He never saw anything which could lead him to believe that the house was required for accommodation.
To Mr. Hesketh: His grounds of objection were not, necessarily, based on abstinence principles. The witness explained the position of the site near the railway station, and a junction of four roads.
Mr. Hesketh then proceeded to urge the grounds on which the application should be granted, pointing out how rapidly the Mount Albert district was increasing, and the station must become a considerable centre.
No personal objection was raised to Mr. Stephenson’s fitness. He noticed one objection was that all the residents in the neighbourhood were able to keep a stock of drink in their own houses, and, therefore, did not require to go to a hotel; but, surely, that objection was tinged with selfishness. The objections he urged savoured of the fanciful and sentimental, and pure matters of opinion, and based on their own views as to temperance, and the objections came almost exclusively from total abstainers. He again referred to the necessity for the house. He submitted that the object of the objectors was to keep their neighbourhood select, but that was a question with which the Court had nothing to do. The question was, Did the traffic require an accommodation house? He submitted that was the only question which had to be considered, and he asked that the application be granted.
Mr. Tyler said the building was in an unfinished state, and under those circumstances the Bench could not grant the license.
The Chairman said the course adopted was to adjourn the application till the building was built, and furnished.
Mr. Hesketh said the building would be ready by the Ist of January, and the license could not come into force before then.
Mr. Tyler then proceeded to address the Court on the merits of the application. He asked ought the Bench, in the face of the fact that the new Act of local option came into force in the beginning of the year, grant a license, without giving the people the right to say whether they desired it or not? The judicious course he submitted would be to leave it over till the vote of the householders was taken. It appeared to him that the object of the applicant in making his application at this stage was to steal a march on the residents.
He then proceeded to deal with the separate objections. He produced a document, signed by 54 people, requesting that the license should not be granted. He had another memorial from 63 persons in the habit of travelling on the road, stating that the house was not required, and requesting that the license be not granted. It was signed by Dr. Pollen and others. A similar protest from business travellers and others, to which signatures were obtained by Mr. Stone, was also presented. He now asked whether it was necessary for him to call evidence.
Mr. Hesketh said he had already offered to admit the objections. All the objectors could do was to depose to their objections.
Mr. Tyler called Mr. Garlick, who deposed that he had a great deal to do with getting the memorial up. They had only twenty four hours to get the signatures. The majority of those who signed resided within a radius of two miles of the site of the hotel. Not more than fifty families resided within that radius. The proportion of residents opposed to the application was fully nine-tenths of those within a radius of a mile. There was not such traffic on the road as would require a halt. The principal traffic was from the Whau to Auckland.
To Mr. Hesketh: He would be surprised to learn from a resident in the district that there were 150 families within a radius of two miles of the hotel site. Some of the residents’ servants might have signed the memorial.
To the Bench: He met no refusals from those he asked to sign. One man refused, but his wife signed it. In regard to his own objection, he believed the establishment of a hotel would depreciate property, by driving away settlers who did not wish for the annoyances of a hotel, and that entered largely into his objection, but he had reason to suppose that dancing and other inducements would be used to draw custom to the house.
His Worship said the license would then be forfeited, so he need not trouble himself on that score.
To Mr. Hesketh: He was a total objector, but it was not altogether from that point of view he objected.
Mr. Hesketh handed in a memorial signed by 133 people in favour of the application, and the applicant would depose that he could have got 500 had he known there would be opposition of this kind. He then replied to Mr. Tyler’s argument re the license not being granted when the house was not finished and other objections, and said he was prepared to give any guarantee that the house would be finished.
The Chairman asked whether they had power now to grant the license when the house was not finished?
Mr. Hesketh thought they had, leaving the certificate in the hands of the officer of the Court, not to be given up until the police certified that it was fit for occupation.
Mr. Tyler said he never knew an instance of the sort. He saw nothing in the Act empowering the Court to grant a conditional certificate.
The Commissioners then retired for a few minutes.
On their return to the Bench, the Chairman said the point on which they decided the application was this: They concluded that it was quite clear the Legislature intended that the colony should henceforth have the advantage or otherwise of local option, and that full effect should be given to it ere this. No doubt, on account of the cumbrous nature of the machinery required for working that Act, delay had been caused, but the Bench did not want to deprive the locality of the benefit of the Act.
They concluded not to grant the application on this ground, but to leave the merits of the Act to be discussed when the new Act was in force.