RESPONSIBILITIES OF HOTELKEEPERS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 84, 10 April 1911, Page 2

RESPONSIBILITIES OF HOTELKEEPERS.

| MUST SUPPLY MEALS. fBT TELBG3IAPH — WIESS ASSOCIATION. j | CHRISTCHURCH, Bth April At the Magistrate's Court to-day before Mr. Bailey, S.M., Robert Bevti, licensee of the Star Hotel, Addingten was charged that, being an innkeeper! he did fail to supply a meal to a traveller, to wit, James Lawlor, on the night of 22nd March. Mr. C. A. Stringer appeared for defendant, who pleaded guilty. Mr. Stringer said that the breach was a technical one, and there were extenuating circumstances. At 7.40 on the night in question, Lawlor came in. and asked far tan meak. It was the day of the cook's weekly half-holiday, and she was away. The housemaid had left off duty at 7 p.m., and Mrs. Berti was absent at the theatre. Berti wae, in fact, the only person in the hotel, except the rouaeabout. He told Lawlor tha-t v it was impossible to let him have the meals in the circumstances, and Lawlor did not press the matter, but merely went away. The police report on defendant's house was favourabple. Sub-Inspector M'Grath said that he could not accept counsel's statement of facts as correct. On the evening in question, twelve men were kept working rather late shearing sheep at the chow grounds for the ram and ewe fair to be held next day. At 7.30 p.m. one of them called at the hotel, and asked if there was any chance of getting tea. He said nothing about the other men. Defendant replied that there was no chance whatever, the servants being away, and the kitchen closed. The man then said ! that there, were twelve of them altogether, and asked if they could have tea. Defendant said "No." The man then obtained two bottlee of beer, and went to a store for some bread and cheese. There was more than a technical breach when a licensee failed to supply a meal to a hungry man. He might at least 'have given the man the bread and" cheese. Nothing was known against defendant previously. The magistrate said that, in a similar case some time ago, he had laid it down that it was a publican's duty to eupply meals. If a traveller called at an unreasonable hour it was a publican's duty to tell him that ifc was too late for an ordinary meal, but that he would let him have "a coki snack." The publican must do the best he could in the circumstances, but the traveller should not be turned away. Mr. Stringer said that it was unfortunate that the man should have come to the hotel when there was no one but de- j fendant in the house. The defendant was fined 30s, and j costs.