Status Of Traveller Lost

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31449, 16 August 1967, Page 28

Status Of Traveller Lost

(N.Z. Press Association)

WHANGAREI, August 15.

A person lost the status of a traveller when he took up nonhotel accommodation at his destination, and could not demand a meal from a hotel, Mr W. F. Brown, S.M., said in the Whangarei Court. The Magistrate delivered a reserved decision on a prosecution brought against Clinton James Collier, a hotel manager, of Russell, of failing to supply a meal at the Duke of Marlborough Hotel to a traveller on March 24. He dismissed the charge on the grounds that the complainant, Mm Levenia Baker,

of Auckland, had lost her status as a traveller upon completing her journey and having taken up residence at a motel before going to the hotel, and also on the grounds that even had she been a traveller, the hotel oh that day would have complied with the Sale of Liquor Act (1962) “in that it had supplied accommodation and meals to the full extent permitted by the premises.”

There was no obligation on a hotelkeeper to supply meals to anyone who was not a traveller, said the Magistrate. “Thus a local resident, desirous of partaking of an evening meal at the local hotel, cannot claim to be supplied with a meal as a matter of light,” he said. “He can only press such a claim if he possesses the status of a traveller.” As “traveller” was not defined in the Sale of Liquor Act or the Innkeepers’ Act

(1962), the question of Whether a person was a traveller was purely a question of fact, said the Magistrate.

“The Court feels that it should pay some regard to the fact that in 1967 speedy transport of all kinds is available, and that accommodation of all kinds is available, not only hotels but flats, holiday cottages, restaurants, modern caravans, and camping grounds possessing up-to-date facilities. “During holiday week-ends thousands of New Zealanders leave the cities and travel to holiday resorts securing accommodation of various kinds. “This situation is In vivid contrast to the stage coach days when the local inn was probably the only place where accommodation or a meal could be obtained." Summarising the evidence, the Magistrate said that •

motel had been secured previously for the complainant at Russell and on the day of the complaint she and her husband travelled there from Auckland. They booked into the motel before going for a walk.

About 6 p.tn. they went to the Duke of Marlborough Hotel and requested an evening meal, but, because the hotel’s meal facilities were fully taxed, they were refused.

A restaurant was open near the motel the complainant was booked into, said the Magistrate. Evening meals on the day of the complaint were served to 56 hotel guests and 21 casuals. The hotel accommodated 56 people and the dining room seated 68. The Magistrate said it was his view the complainant lost her status as a traveller on taking up residence in the motel.