REFUSING ACCOMMODATION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2928, 27 April 1910, Page 18

REFUSING ACCOMMODATION.

CHARGE AGAINST A PUBLICAN.

CHRISTCHURCH, April 15.

The point as to whether a licensee was justified in refusing accommodation to a traveller because he believed him ■to be an undesirable person occupied the attention of Mr Bailey, S.M., this morning. W. M. Kelly, licensee of the Wharf Hotel at Woolston, was charged with failing to supply accommodation to Laurence Taylor, a traveller. Sub-inspector M'Grath prosecuted, and Mr Hunt defended. Laurence. Taylor, a cattle drover, stated that on March 9 he drove a number of cattle from Addington to the accommodation paddock at Opawa, and in order that he might be close to them, and so that he could! continue his journey early in the morning, he applied for accommodation at the Wharf Hotel about 8 p.m. The licensee, whom he saw, gave him to understand that it would be all right, and told him to see Mrs Kelly, but she was not in, and when witness informed him of that fact he still said it would be all right. Witness remained in the hotel till closing time, and then Mr Kelly ordered him out with other men who were not boarders Witness explained his position, and was told to wait outside. Shortly afterwards he knocked at the door, and Mr Kelly, answei'ed, and after an explanation had been made told him to go round to the back door. Mr Kelly and his wife met him there, and witness explained that he was only after a shakedown for the night. Mrs Kelly said something about the place being in disorder owing to a carpenter having been there, and remarked to witness : " Take ' No ' for an answer." He did not get accommodation that night at the Wharf Hotel. Mr Hunt: You are a loafer ? Witness : No; I earn my living driving cattle. I work three or four days driving cattle during the week. Mr Hunt: Yon have been convicted of larceny ?—Witness: Supposing I have, I have paid for it, and you have no right to slander me now. In reply to further auestions. witness said he was not repeatedly hanging about this hotel, and he had never been ordered out by Mr Kellv or the previous licensee. Mr Hunt said that under section 165 of the Licensing Act a licensee could refuse" accommodation if he had a valid reason, and he submitted that his client had a valid reason in refusing to accommodate Taylor with lodgings. The defendant said that Taylor asked him for board and lodging for the night, and, as he was busy in the bar at the time, he told him to call back later. When he saw him at 10.10 p.m. he refused to take him in owing to what his wife told him. He had often seen Taylor about the hotel, and, as far as he knew, he did little work, and hardly ever spent any money in the hotel. He was generally in a very untidy and dirty condition. Witness had frequently had e<*gs stolen, and had lost little knick-knacks from the line when Taylor was about, He refused him accommodation because he was an undesirable person to have in the house. Constable Pratt said he interviewed the defendant and his wife on March 4 regarding the charge, and Kelly said he had refused him for various reasons. He said he had had occasion to put Tavlor off the premises before, and he strongly suspected him of pilfering. As far as witness knew, Taylor did very little work. To Mr Hunt: Witness had had him' under observation. Two witnesses gave evidence as to seeing Taylor beina: oidered out of the hotel previously. He was always in a most untidy condition. The magistrate said he would reserve his decision, in order to consider whether the defence constituted a legally valid reason for refusing accommodation.