INCIDENT AT AN HOTEL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18662, 19 March 1924, Page 11

INCIDENT AT AN HOTEL.

ACTION AGAINST PUBLICAN.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FAILS.

An episode at an .hotel in .Albert Street early this month had a sequel in the Magistrate's Court, yesterday, before Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M. William Alexander Sutherland, farm manager (Mr. Hogg), claimed £51 13s 6d damages from Alfred Hayter, licensee of the Shakespeare Hotel (Mr. Lowrie), alleging that on March 5 defendant assaulted and beat him, and damaged his umbrella, and that plaintiff had been compelled, as a result, to pay £1 Is medical expenses. Plaintiff gave evidence to the effect that on the afternoon of March 5 he went to the hotel on business. He was later put out by the defendant. Plaintiff told defendant to wait till he got the police. He alleged that the licensee then oaug'ht hold of him by the coat and pulled him -into the hotel. He fell, and was kicked, and was then pushed out of the hotel. His umbrella was taken from him and thrown out after him.. Cross-examined, plaintiff denied using an offensive expression to. defendant. Plaintiff said lie was a farm manager seven years ago. Since then he had been shepherding. When he went to the hotel he asked the barman if he had been sending a man about town to molest him. The barman " flew up like a packet of crackers." On the application of • Mr. Hogg the Magistrate reduced the amount of the claim to £20. • A carrier stated that he saw plaintiff and defendant near the hotel arguing: He saw defendant pull plaintiff into the hotel out of sight. In a few seconds witness saw plaintiff pushed • out of the hotel. An umbrella'came flying out and fell into the mud. To Mr. Lowrie witness said that plaintiff was very muoh excited. Witness heard no bad language. Defendant, in evidence, denied as* saulting plaintiff. -When defendant went into the private bar the barman said plaintiff had accused him. of getting men to follow him about and molest, him. Plaintiff said he wanted the barman dismissed. Defendant asked plaintiff to- go and assisted him out into the street. Outside the hotel plaintiff used an obscene expression *to defendant and also used offensive expressions regarding his wife, who was then on, the stairs. Defendant took hold of the lapels of 'plaintiff's coat' and pulled him back to the doorwav, asking him to repeat bis words. Plaintiff did so. and defendant pushed him away. Plaintiff was very excited and went away. He did not appear injured. The barman gave further evidence. The magistrate said it was perfectly clear that plaintiff went to the "hotel to have an artrument with someone. There was a conflict of evidence, but Mr. Hunt was inclined to believe, the publican's story was correct. Publicans did not want rows at their hotels and it was not likely that defendant would have touched plaintiff without provocation. Judgment, was for defendant with costs.