"ROYAL" RIGHTS.

NZ Truth, Issue 250, 9 April 1910, Page 6

"ROYAL" RIGHTS.

Is a Swank-seller's House His Castle?

Decision for the Drinkery.

The adjourned hearing of the mtich-taiked-of Auckland Royal Hotel case, m which Sidney Jas. Ficwellyn, the licensee, is charged with having, on February 19, refused, without valid reason, to give accommodation to one Harry Temple, a commercial traveller, was resumed at the Auckland S.M.s Court,, before Mr Kettle, S.M., on Wednesday of j last week, when additional evidence wascalled for the prosecution. William Waodward, late ' licensee of the Royal Hotel, was put m the box. He was proceeding to state what Temple's conduct had been during his time; when Kettle, S.M., interrupted by saying that he would assume that Temple had conducted himself well at other times and m other places. The S.M. submitted some of Temple's verses to witness and asKed him what he would say if a man wrote .such a thing regarding his (witness's) iwife, whereupon witness replied that he would knock him down and would not admit him to his house. , Alfred Mason, a cab driver, deposed to having driven Temple to the Royal Ho-, tel on February 19, when Flewellyn or- , dered him (Temple) away, adding, 1 'Everybody knows who yoa are ; you are a waster," or, said witness, "a bounding waster," he was not sure which. His Worship again interrupted, stating that this was all admitted, and adding that Temple's complaints about the food and abuse of the waiters were' sufficient to justify a landlord m refusing him. This drew "from Sub-Inspector Hendry the retort that if his Worship had made up his mind, he (Hendry) would not further take up the time of the court. His Worship said he had not made up his mind, but the evidence should be restricted to what had taken place m the house. Sergeant James Ferguson deposed to . Temple's complaint on February la, and to his subsequent call at the Royal Hotel. Evidence was given about Flewellyn's refusal to admit -Temple, and the former's statement that Temple an undesirable man. Some controversy took place regarding the removal of some luggage which had been left by Temple at the hotel on a forirer occasion. His Worship again betrayed impatience at the manner m which' the time of the court was being taken up, whereupon the SubInspector said fchat; m view of his Wor-' ship's attitude, he would not call further evidence, although he had nine more voluntary witnesses ready. Malcolm Charles Farrihgton was recalled by Mr Earl to rebut certain statements made by Temple. ■ Sub-Inspector Hendry informed the bench, m answer to a question, that

Flawellyn's reasons for refusing to admit Temple were not put In writing. 'His Worship- asked il Temple^ had given ah. indemnity to the police to cover costs, should costs be given against them, and he was informed that he had not. This closed the case. His Worship said ,he did not think it to reserve: his decision m this' case. The information was laid under section 165 of the Licensing Act, which.' 'provided that, if the licensee of an hotel, refuses to admit a traveller to his hotel without having a valid reason for so doing, be is liable to a penalty. If he be refused, he may have ait action for' damages, or he would be entitled to bring the matter before the Licensing i Committee at its quarterly meeting, or he, vcould himself lay-an information chafg-' .ing the licensee with a breach of fee' -Act. The information was one which did'! "not altogether concern the public, but it, .concerned the individual whose, admittance, to the hotel was refused. Mr Temple was a bona iidc traveller within the meaning of the Act; he was a commercial traveller who was m the habit of going about' from place to place, and, m his Worship's^! opinion, he was entitled to admittance as a traveller, provided he was prepared to, conform to the unwritten laws and regulations of the hotel. A roan who went~to ■■• an hotel must conduct himself so as not io become a, nuisance and annoyance either to the licensee or to the people who are living m the hotel. In his Worship's opinion, the evidence m thiscase sufficiently justified the licensee m declining to admit Temple to his hotel, and, he had told Temple by telegram that he would decline to provide a room for him;' .'nevertheless, Temple, knowing what the position was, endeavored to force himself on the licensee • and assert a legal right with the aid of the . police .and by means. of a prosecution. He came down and presented himself at the door, with cabs, witnesses and others, With a view to test whether he was entitled to be admitted, and, when he failed, lie put the v matter m the hands of the police, who' took it up without having obtained any indemnity from him, and without having given the licensee an opportunity „to put m writing his reasons for having refused to adini't Temple. His Worship saw no reason to doubt the evidence of the waitress, of Mr. Charles Harrington, and of Miss Bessie Lehar.ty. His Worship considered that Tem^leis conduct and interference, liis comments on the manner m which the place was conducted, his; threats to make a complaint to Mr Davis, his complaint m the dining room .about tke f©od, sayiug "it was i;ot fit for pigs," and his conduct m taking up the cud£«ls on behalf of people who did Uiot vrAtit to make any fuss at all, all justified the licensee m refusing to talte him back to tbe hotel. Even, however, it I that were not sufficient justification, j Temple's mvni admission as to what took ! pLica m tt» lt*r m the presence' of the ! fcarmsyV*, vktfiSi U. c 1 omi sulftnipnt Justt-

fication for excluding him from the hotel. In his Worship's opinion, the two lines which Temple admitted having repeated m the presence of Miss Leharty, were a gross, gratuitous, and cowardly insult to »' his hostess, and the licensee,: had he heard them, would have been justified m taking L Temple by the scruff of the neck and kicking him out of the place. On this ground alone, Mr Fleweliyn was amply justified m saying that he would never allow Temple to darken his doors again. For these reasons his Worship dismissed the case. Mr Earl applied for costs against the police, on the ground that they had, (Without inquiry, taken up what was really Temple's case. The SJM. reserved argument on this point, and the matter was adjourned ■ for a week, his Worship suggesting that the police should be represented by coun.sel. Sub-Inspector Hendry suggested that m any case an appeal would he made,, to which his Worship replied that he would like an appeal from his decision.