TURNED AWAY.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLIV, Issue 74, 4 April 1910, Page 6

TURNED AWAY.

AN UNWELCOME GUEST.

LICENSEE JUSTIFIED

In the case in which S. J. Flewellyn, licensee of the Royal Hotel, Auckland, was charged with having refused admission to one Temple, Mr C. C. Kettle, S.M., delivered his judgment on Wednesday, in the course of which he said:-r-

"I do not think it necessary to reserve my decision in this case. The information is laid under section 165 of the Licensing Act, which provides that if the licensee of an hotel refuses to admit a traveller without

having a vaid reason for so doing, he •is liable to a penalty. If a traveller is refused admission he may have an action for damages, or he would be entitled to bring the matter before the Licensing Committee at the quarterly meeting, or he could himself lay an information charging the licensee with a breach of the Act. This information is one which does not altogether concern the public, but it concerns the individual whose admission to the hotel is refused. There is nothing in the nature of the case which affects the general public, because it would be absurd to say that a hotel-keeper will, generally speaking, shut his doors against travellers. No hotelkeeper will exclude "people from his hous<?>, so long as they are prepared to pay their way ■and to conduct themselves in a reasonable manner. '

"I am of opinion that Mr Temple was a bona fide traveller within the meaning of the Act, and was entitled to admission as a traveller, provided he was prepared to conform to the unwritten laws aiid regulations of the hotel. A man who goes to an hotel must conduct himself so as not to become a nuisance, and ari annoyance not only to the licensee, but to the people who are living in the hotel. In my opinion the evidence in this case sufficiently justifies the licensee in declining to admit Mr Temple to his hotel. The licensee had told Mr Tt-mple, by telegram, that he would decline to provide a room for him, and yet Mr Temple, knowing what tho position was,.endeavoured to force himself on the licensee, and assert a legal right by the aid of the police, and by means of a prosecution. He came down from Whangarei, and presented himself at the door with cabs and witnesses, with a view of testing whether he was entitled to be admitted, and when he failed, ho put the matter into the hands of the police, who took it up without having obtained any indemnity from him for costs, and without having given the licensee an opportunity o'i putting down in writing his reasons for having -refused to admit Temple." Continuing, Mr Kettle said he saw no reason to doubt the evidence of the waiter and the head-waiter, and of Mr Charles Farrington, as to what took place in the hotel and the vestibule. Neither did he see any reason to doubt the evidence of Miss Bessie Leharty, the barmaid, as to what took place in the bar. Apart from Mv Temple's conduct and interference, his comments as to the manner in which the place was conducted, his threats to make a complaint to Mr Davis, and so forth, his complaint in the dining-room about the food, saying it was not fit for pigs, coupled with his conduct in the vestibule in taking up the cudgels on behalf of people when there was no need, in his Worship's opinion, the licensee was justified in refusing to take him back to the hotel.

"But," continued his Worship, "even if that were not sufficient justification for the action of the licensee, Mr Temple's own admission as to what took place in the bar, in the presence of the barmaid, would have been sufficient justification for the licensee to have excluded him from the hotel. In my opinion, the two lines which Mr Temple admitted having repeated in the presence of Miss Leharty were a gross, gratuitous, and cowardly insult to his hosteso, and the licensee, had he known of Temple's conduct on that occasion, would have been justified in taking him by the scruff of the neck and kicking him out of the place. For a man of MiTemple's upbringing, who calls himself a gentleman, to go into a hotel and speak of anyone in the two disgusting and filthy lines (of which he seemed very proud) that ho had repeated in this courts was conduct which could not possibly meet with approval from anyone. On this ground alone, Mr Flewellyn was amply justified in saying that he would never allow Mr Temple to darken his doors again. For these reasons, the case must be dimsissed." Mr Earl, in answer to the Bench, said that he intended to apply for costs. He did not consider it a proper thing for the police to allow a man like Temple to shelter himsedf behind a prosecution laid by a police sergeant, who knew nothing about the matter.

The magistrate desided lo reserve the-question of whether or not costs should Ke given against the police. He could not understand why the police had taken up the case without having got some indemnity as to costs from Mr Temple. Sub-Inspeector Hendrey said it was possible the matter might be taken further.

Mr Kettle: I hope it will. I should like to hear what Mr Justice Edwards has to say about MiTemple's conduct.

The question of giving costs against the police was allowed to stand over for a week, when the matter will probably be argued.