Advertiser (Adelaide, SA : 1889 - 1931), Wednesday 11 March 1914, page 5


-sTOTELS OBJECTED TO

"STEW HOUSES PETER ERECTED;

The annual meeting of the Adelaide Licensing. Bench, which was held at the Stockade Police Court on Tuesday, was of more" than usual interest to hotelkeepers', because of the endeavor on the part of the police to close several hotels. Sie basis of the proceeding was the conditions of-the buildings in quest¡on,<->some of which, were alleged to be, dilapidated ,. jsn4-*ainoos.VJ. The court was crowded

to the doors, and seldom has such a large number of people been present. i Mr. T. Gepp, S.M., presided, and v with

îurtKvôn-tthe bench were Messrs. T. H. Brooker. A. McDonald, MR., G. C , and, W. H Burford, C Wells; V. taw

fence, and the Hon. J. Lewis, MLC ,' ( Lord Raglan Hotel.

The renewal of the license of Susanna State., and Florence sending in respect to the.*Lord|Jlaalan Hotel; Waymouth-street was opposed by the police on the ground

of the dilapidated state of the premises Mr, G.'J»j$are, one of the proprietors I ot'lahtfjömicSilg, put in plans of a building

proposed to be erected on the site of the - preséâtshotel. He admitted, thetold budd .' fog was in a delapidated condition, and said the proprietors desired to erect a sub , stantial hotel, furnished throughout, and I nd^&k&h that the consideration of the of arp i&tten be adjourned for 12 months 2 ^wpelràiitfthè^building to be erected and J . furnished. TendeisJt.wi>uld be invited c within a week, for the work

- fAtfs'adjotirninent for six months was a gtpntedjnoväex that substantial progress

mightJbpjThaile with the building in the i -meantime.

a Flagstaff Hotel, Darlington.

HotóíaoíUrsn made application for the tcri¿wal\of his license for the Flagstaff

; life, at Darlington. Mr. F A Chat-,

a" man, public officer for the Lion Brewing * - Company, the proprietors,, of the hotel,

v said he admitted that the building "Was j

iwmetoháíz^aiítiquated It was now pro"s yopeaNio mile down the hotel, and erect a auction pending, the plans of which had been prepared. He asked for an ad-'s government for nine months,, so, that the v new hotel should be built. as a

, > ThB*eas¿'was adjourned,fdr>sx months, 3 and ¿hetappkcation for the, renewal of the 3 license was' granted. A A

; Backs Head Hoeel^StepneyA 3 9 X in regard to the application of K D

*X«,EMlffdr,a renewal of publican's and

Iriifianis -classes the police again lodged a. compsinfr:tnat the premises-were 'iron7 tons and dilapidatedt>^" Mr. R. W.-Bensett, who appeared for the applicant, on, Jected that the information alleged a % donJSla^ffence', and Dr. Richards, who ap( * Be&ß^jgjr^fcbe Crown, amended the in

îïonaa&ola^oy^striking ont "ruinous land ' is Mr. Bennett further complained that the iicenBee-jgaa charged with having allowed ^Tieaaenuses to become dilapidated!, where ^Îs^&Èseçdénbe would show that the con

s ffilsp^Sfthe house was better to-day than; when the license was granted or a Richards intimated that he did not propose VJto press Joca forfeiture £

^¿metästb-JL ask the bench to daya tnasai^siiilsformation, and then I will 4<vdijmiaaaly%i£ar the bench plans, of a new

life, for which tenders are being called on

X Mr Gepp You object; to being ona JapJfyáu$fc-To being illegally on.. % 3pÊ pw not too illegally

* - Mr."*Bennett-Yes, I submit illegally.

f - Bru Richards My object is not to quibble Z 6^éî3îe^.flnesiaons I desire to see good * î"1^**^'1^"16 age of 16 present pre-

5s The information was withdrawn. 2 Mr. Bennett submit for the informa

iOfcJätes-bench plans of a new hotel pîf which -within,, £4,000 C of E J fliéè^^AMÏQW long will the.work.<take? 41 MptBennett-Eight monthlies ; j to Mr, flepp-The application is granted.

Parke of Wellington Hotel, Payneham

< Ííp¡|sMfpfct represented the applicant, J

kTbnSgaaYjyuËolt, for the renewal of the llice^lçr^h^Dnke of Wellington Hotel, Payneham. He lodged, a stmilar¿c<b5|ec^ , litan as in the previous case -with "regard to the ^Mj&EiBafcion, 12A. the contract

5\afc£x^fiisJl£he asked that the informal S'i^^^^^^^Tceattiagree to within

trawler information There was greathealer reason why, X-îWiuhdrew^Jhe "late

" e last ca A. but last states

, adiODTnmeirt, in this, case. ' Wid he TfoWhxtämm 5$be^ip§|^^ïïn%ner * the chairman took a note of (the point he had raised, that, (the information disclosed a double of \Í?nce^,aa¿^aM) charged the licensee with ^Uoswnétfhe/.pîace to become dilapidated. - iffea&tój^r^tne new building were- at 5 gsépí^^txar^tox the laying of the infor

Jjnatjon, and in the face of that the Service -would not 'withdraw the informa

f jifcHKe^netn-Jiiihie, architect, said he aiad-*èçp):fljéirncted by. the S.A. Brewing. Company to proceed with the contract Iwlncnlh8d^ijptfyet been actually issued.., suspenders had been accepted, and¿¿g3,419 |^o$pí^*sptoi on the new building.

Dr. Richards said he would he quite

willing to adjourn the information but if the bench was satisfied that it should be withdrawn he would not mind doing: that * as Tas

,Tl|e%-" Chairman Very well, Do. Jhchards will withdraw the information, and the application will be granted.

The Bedford

" When the case of Joseph H F Ryan, of the. Bedford Hotel, Currie-street, was called on Mr Bennett, for the applicant said the case was similar to the last Plans, for a new hotel had been prepared, but the contract had not yet been signed nor tenders called

Dr Richards With regard to this case, I understand tenders have not been called What I suggest is that the case be adjourned and-when- the -conteacfc-hâs _ actually been signed I will be willing, to ! withdraw the information -v , T

Mr Bennett That is quite fair

The Chairman We will adjourn this until September then

Duke of York Hotel

In the case of the Duke of York Hotel, Currie-street, the applicants were Margaret J Davy and Bwdgefc;Murpby, and Mr Bennett explained that the licensees were not present, because they were convinced of

their innocence

The Chairman-But are the police convinced that way? The police suggest she is guilty of Sunday trading, and that gambling-is carried on there

Mr Bennett That is only supposition

The Chairman's they were here we could draw their attention to the police report You will have to tell them to be more careful in the future

Mr Bennett will convey that to them The application was granted

Riverton

The police, report respecting the River-ton Hotel, Riverton (William J. Hum-phries) was that the hotel was generally in an untidy state.

Mr. Humphries said the police had never made any objection to him

Sub-inspector Burchell said the licensee did not seem to have a proper conception i of whatTan hotel should be. He had called Mr. Humphries' attention to the condition of his premises previously.

( The Chairman-He had better keep it more tidy in the future. The license will be renewed. -1 ' A

-*~ ' ' Baker's Springs.

A complaint was lodged by Sub-Inspec-tor" 'Bushell that " the Baker's Springs Hotel at Rhynie (William A Lawson) was poorly furnished, but the" building was not in a dilapidated condition. t The license ,waerJfenewedj by the Bench.

Junction Hotel.

" A-similar complaint was made with regard

to the Junction- Hotel, Roseworthy, (Harriet A. Payne), Sub-Inspector Bushel mentioned that the hotel had changed

hands since he had made his report, and I he was satisfied that' things would be

much, better. The bench granted the renewal. " L " '" "I ''-' I - * e, -~ "The Criterion Hotel.

Charles Whallin, of the Criterion Hotel, j

was. called before the bench. The Chairman said-the police had reported that Whallin kept a blackboard in his bar, on which were posted the results of races, I both local and inter-State. That en- ' couraged a large crowd to congregate in' and around the premises on race days,

and several constables had to be stáfíofrell,{ in;the<yicinity., '"We cannot preventf"tfiafe,,< Mt, Whallin's said the Chairman, but I know that on several occasions people have been proceeded against for loitering

. said ithat}.when> the police nmáe^a'iaídíoB"1 ' the people" congregated there*-JMefr- rushed

"ball matches were possesses them. if they attracted the betting people there should not be avoided. Other hotels had,

the boards, and if Mr.' WJballín 'removes

fIre could in that direction

The Chairman-If Mr. W^aHiiucan 'doanything to prevent that' he ought to.; I That shall we can say. The license will

be granted, " ' Y

, "? r Sportsman's Hotel. at' six VA case in which material opposition was taken to the renewal of the licensee, was; thafTîîuoonnection with the Soortsrhan/ai HotpJOIByroijg>lace, Adelaide, the sense' ftlcwhiohY wasxConrad A. E BottcÈir^pk. Richards. ,wdih Mr A. J HannSSt? *£&?> lined'&r^«e police, and Mr. >-RS£w. Bennett of- the., applicant

Dr Richards said the objection to the renewal of that license was that the premines were not required for the accountstations of the public. The end which it was desired to attain was not that the number of hotels in the city should be reduced, but that only such houses as could and really did provide suitable accommodatransfer the public should be licensed to sell intoxicating liquor. Therefore, it was necessary that there should not be a superiority of House in the city If there were more houses licensed than were required for the accommodation of the pubhe the result must necessarily be that they

would not have such a good class of house as the policy of the Licensing Act required. It had been suggested that the special provisions of the Licensing Act with

regard to the reduction of the number of licenses, had ousted the jurisdiction- of. the bench to refuse renewals on. the ground that hotels were not required for the accommodation of the public.

Mr. Bennett-I shall not suggest that; I

shall contend it r, s". > '

Thomas H.J Davey, inspector of licenses houses, said the hotels in the vicinity, of the Sportsman were Angel Inn, 280 yards away; Talbot, 405 yards; Bushman's Club, 420 yards; Prince Albert, 340 yards; Hampshire, about 420 yards; Flagstaff, about 400 yards; and the Cumberland, about 455 yards. The Sportsman Hotel was not required for the accommodation of the public in his opinion. It was a single-storey house of eight rooms. In j the yard there were four ' other 3 rooms. I There were five bedrooms. altogether. At

'the- Angel Inn there were five bedrooms, at

the Talbot eight, at the Bushman's Club seven at the Prince Albert seven, at the Hampshire eight, at the Flagstaff eighteenth atthe'Cumberlahd''14. ,

2' Mr. Bennett There are"sixlot?er hotels in the city- being objected to on the ground that they are not required for the accommodation of the public? Yes.

Do you think they are not required?I think they could be well done without. The public are not suffering in any way.

I would not care if half the" hotels went

out. '

Can I take it that there are more, hotels than the seven "that you think ' are not required? I don't say so., v,;'

Don't you think the AngeOnn' could be done without 3S well as the 'Sportsman?That is in the main street.

If the Angel Inn had^byenMn' a side street you would have objected to it?Yes: that is one of the objections. There are too many hotels in that neighborhood.

What other objections have you got to this hotel There is not much accommodation at this hotel. '* V

There is the, same number of "bedrooms as at the *. Angel Inn.-But'they" are not

so good.

With regard to the Castle Inn and the Overway Hotel, they are on opposite cor-ners Yes. "i -j- of

Don't you think the Castle-hill could be better done without than the Sportsman?

-No. ,

Why? There is more traffic there.

There are ten hotels in the city; of Ade-laide Yes. "

And can I take it thatYthe..seven Hotels are the only ones not required That is all we are objecting to at present.

Then are you going to object to others I don't know. - .'" 'j 2

Have you conferred with anybody with respect to laying these particular- informa-tions? Yes, with Inspector Burchell.

Have you conferred with the Attorney-General

Dr. Richards-I shall object.'-', it is a matter of State. " ""*'',.<?- The

Chairman-I shall. natAaltów the question. i ''s" ""'s""' s' '"Mr. Bennett-The Sportsman has been conducted properly? Yes.

V Could you be surprise trip better that the takings at this hotel are £56;;. to c £60 2 weeks I don't know what ' they "are".. a

Have you any idea of the number of people that go to this hotel? No. >

Do you know that the liccnseeSBurehaeed this place for £2,500, ahd'pVul £800 to go into it-No. \i^£è$«V \

-, Constable Hannan mentionee'thar^n-umber" "65 hotels in the vicinity of the Sportemaib He said, that possibly all those places were not required , , grasses r ,

Mr.-JJennetfc-^-You made.à'<âGpv#8s T)f time residents in the vicimty?ir-")?es!:-«''^ Went round and saw a lot of peôp'fë'io'geÉ their, opinions, as to whether the hotel was a' quired. " s i r,'.'

"Did not a large majority sayifliey^anted the"hotel?-Perhaps a majonty¿^bjík pots large majority. *' * ' » v .

' Edgar Horace Jacka, agent, residing in Gouger-street, said his property almost abutted on the hotel grorädT_,T|te,k"'censir'

, And. you would like to see this place ¿slosed?-No, not for the sake of closing it.' I am not bigoted on, this, question.

As a matter of fact you" this there is some Sunday trading going > notes have estate. of a- ' : "

And that is the ground on Vrnch you suppose Uns licensees'

You make a practice of opposing hotel licenses in this neighborhood'--SAbout four years ago there was a winç/Jifiense^-flvhicli

James Amos laborer of Byron-place, said' his Opinion was that the house was not- required In answer .toH^rS.T'BBTmetj;, thVwithesB said he -was' teetotaller at present, and he wanted tfefôb^e^ ' but closed A li ^~ V

Mr Bennett asked the bench if he thought there was anything to reply to

The- Chairman Yes, we Would like to hear you * r

'Mr Bennett said he raised, tari objec tions that upon the true construction of the Licensing Act, 1908 the bench had no power, authority, or discretion to" entertain the particular objection in respect of any hotel situated within the. -local option district of Adelaide, and met assuming that the bench had power it had to be exercised judicially He asked who was bfihmd^thesejroceedings ". a ft 4, ( ,

Inspector Burchell said "he was"

Mr BenneffP^It is not the inspectors There is some power behind the 'throne menage jajijànsçector I applied to the Commíesiicmer^of Police, but I could get flöjTtiiformatfon from him I Jjskor her way these particular houses we,re,Sjelected, -and T showed him the unfairnegB/'oi 18 say The only reply I could get iwmJiim was that he ""Bad nothing to say I then approached the Attorney General's *?

Dr Richards This is not contests- of evidence, and I don't know at night Mr

Bennett has to mention it I *"

The Chairman Suppose there is an in shearer of these proceedings, what does it matter We has a discretion which is not going to be. interfered with any- any-' one * v 'S S I

Mr Bennett-No sir, but if someone is mterfennb-Brith'that discretion- 2 The

Chairman What has that got to

do with it'

Mr Bennett Will you tell me why Crown Solicitor is appearing here'

The Chairman-He appears in matters for the police

Mr Bennett will show you that this is only another attempt to get the same re suit as local option

The Chairman-16 won't affect us in the slightest, degree, and this seems to me to

be a waste of time.

The matter was then adjourned, till this mornings as? a ,