The Licensing Law

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIX, Issue 93, 24 August 1923, Page 5

The Licensing Law

ACCOMMODATION REFUSED.

NORMAN3Y PUBLICAN FINED.

When John Bi hop and Maud Mary Bishop, an elderly couple, of I Surrey Road, Tariki, w»nt to lArraauby so that they would be near their son, who was ip hospital at Hawera, they went to Poole's Commercial Hotel and asked for accommodation. which was refused. The refusal led to an interview with the police, who proceeded against William Shakespeare Poole, the licensee, at the Hawera Court on Thursday, for refusing accommodation to travellers without sufficient cause.

Bishop said he and his wife went to the hotel and asked the licensee’s wife for accommodation. She agreed to “put them up.” Poole then came along and refused to allow them to stay at the hotel, alleging they were not married. H© then ordered them out of the hotel, practically pushing them out. They did pot stay in Hawera, or with the wife’s people near Normanhy, because it was not convenient to do so. After being refused by Poole witness said he went to the other hotel in Normanhy and secured accommodation. In evidence Poole said he had kept licensed houses for 27 years and had never had n conviction against him. On the day prior to the alleged offence the Bishops came along to his hotel with some undesirable relatives, and had some drink. Ho then believed Mrs Bishop to be another wrman. The next evening when the Hi,hops came along for accommodation Mrs Bishop's dress and hat wore in. a dilapidated condition, and. the couple cud nut look like people who ohouid be given ac; ommoduuon. Auer refusing them and receiving their protestations Poole said he would acLommodai© them, providing they could prove they were married. They then went away to the police. The Bishops did not tender any money wneu asking lor aecoiuniouar tion. Witness was very sorry he had made a mistake and had apologised. The magistrate doubted whether the question of payment arose in the present case. In spite of the iuuglish cases quoted he was going to hold that the tender of money taa not necessary unless the question of ability to pay arose. He was satisfied that Poole had made a mistake, but was not satished that the B.shops were dres.ed in a manner that warranted a refusal of accommodation. In any case, Poole had admitted this was nut the real reason whv ho had refused them. Poole had admitted thu was not the real reason why he had refused them. w r ould be fined 10s, with costs.— (News).