View report page

82
Chairman of the Licensing Justices stated under such circumstances
the Bench had not the same control over the house
as they had over those licensed since that date, they therefore
renewed the license.
In No. 6 case there was an application to transfer the
license, Counsel appearing for the new Licensee gave an undertaking
to the Bench to carry out the Vestry's requirements.
In No. 7 case Counsel appeared for Licensee and pleaded
there was sufficient accommodation. The Bench renewed the
license having expressed themselves satisfied with the accommodation
already provided.
In No. 8 case Counsel appeared for Licensee, and drew the
attention of the Bench to the fact that some two years previously
the Vestry had called upon the then Licensee to make certain
alterations to the sanitary conveniences, at which time the
Vestry's requirements were satisfactorily carried out, and moreover,
that good public urinal accommodation existed immediately
opposite the premises in question. The Bench therefore decided
to renew the license.
On the 30th March, 1894, the adjourned sessions of the
Licensing Justices was attended with respect to cases Nos. 1,2,
4,5 and 6. In cases Nos. 2 and 6 the opposition of the Vestry
was withdrawn as the necessary works had been carried out.
With reference to case No. 1 the Justices expressed the
opinion that the house ought never to have been licensed, but
they considered that to construct an urinal upon the premises
would create a nuisance, they therefore decided to renew the
license.
With respect to No. 4 they decided to renew the license,
being of opinion that sufficient urinal accommodation existed
for the use of the customers of the house.