The Star. WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 1899. THE BATTLE OF THE BLOOMERS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6499, 31 May 1899, Page 2

The Star. WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 1899. THE BATTLE OF THE BLOOMERS.

| MY XAI) Y'S"RATIONALS." I VISCOUNTESS LOSES HER CASE;. ______ - ".' " SKIN TIGHTS." . Lady, Harberton's bloomers were by way of being on their trial at the Surrey Quarter sessions, but, unfortunately, the great question of " to bloomer or not- to bloomer "was shelved by a side issue. • The Court did not decide : — 1. Whether knickerbockers are seemly garments for ladies, or 2. Whether the lady who wears tliem is entitled to the same rights of public refreshment as her sister in skirts. It merely decided: — 1. That Lady Harberton did wear knickerbockers. ■ • 2. That the landlady, for that reason, refused to have her in the coffee-uoom. 3. But the landlurdy offered to serve her in ancflther room. . 4. Therefore there was' no refusal to serve, and the prosecuti-m must faiL The - defendant was Mjra Mary Jane Sprague, landlady of the Hautbov- Hotel, ; Oekhaih, v She was charged, on indictment, with refusing to serve Lady Harberton, a traveller, with refreshment, without sufficient or reasonable cause.. The Court was crowded, and there were . more reporters present that the Courthouse had ever held before. Several ladies,, keenly interested in the matter of feminiae attire, went to hear the proceedings. . They left their bicycles outside, and wore skirts. The only knickerbockers the jury saw.wereon Lady Harberton's portrait* . _■'._.. Lord Coleridge, Q.C., for tlie petitioner, mentioned that the proceedings were taken by the Cyclists' Touring Club, and their object was to determine precisely what were the •-'..-•'■ • '- DUTIES "OF AN INNKEEPER, towards cyclists on tour, especially when the cyclists were ladies, and were attired "in such a manner as might not suit the fancy of the particular license-holder " — a phrase which is delicacy itself. Lady Harberton wept into the box, cool and determined, to tell her story. She said that on Oct. 27 she Was out cycling and she went to the Hautboy for lunch. Mrs Sprague came to the door and said she could not be admitted in that dress— "rationals." "But," said witness, "I have come from London. I am hungry, and I must. have some luncheon." "Then," said Mrs Sprague, ' " you must have it another room. You cannot have it in the coffee-room." I said I didn't mind what room I had it in, but as I was a member of the C.T.C., I expected to be served on the usual terms. .".In that case," said Mrs Spra-jue, "you must come into a room on the other side of j (he bar." I said I didn't- care where I went, 30 long as I, had luncheon. She replied that I she must serve me if I insisted, but she \ would much rather I went away. , Eventually Mrs Sprague led witness into | the bar-parlour by way of the bar. It j .-melt horribly. .Some working men were inoking in -the bar,, and in the par-parlour ■Were three or four men, two of whom were smoking. . Mrs Sprague opened the door and then went away. Witness couid not bear the smell of tobacco and spirits, and •yent;and told Mrs Sprague so. She afterwards went to the Wliite Lion, at Cobham, -where she was served vathout objection. '" TIIE LANDLADY'S EVIDENCE". _Mrs Sprague Raid she had held the license jf the Hautboy foi* thirteen years, and dur--iig that time it liad been used by a superior ;lass. She had never admittted ladies in rational dress to the coffee-room unless they had brought their skirts with them. Lady Harberton asked if she could" have lunch, and witness said she could have a private room. Lady Harberton said, " But I shall have to pay extra?" and witness replied, "Certainly. The lady then said, "I don't care where you put me so long as you can give me lunch." Witness then took the lady round to the bar and opened the parlour door so that her Ladyship could pass in at once. At the same time she called to the maid to serve the lady with lunch. There were three gentlemen in the parlour a t the tame. One was a retired architect, * and of independent means, the second was

also independent ' Tbe third witness did not j kiw»w. Lady Harlierton said she could iiot > stay because of tlie smoke. Witness said | there- wa* no othei-. room, and her ladysliip i said she should regard the incident as a ' reiusak to serve. &he then went away. i "SKIN.TJWSHTS." By Locd Coleridga .- Had Lady Harberton not been, wearing this, costume she would Jiave been, admitted to tbe coffee-room without demurBy Mr Avory : She acted as she believed in the interests of the house. Lauy Harberton and her friends were beyond reproach, j but there were other lady cyclists on the Portsmouth Road whom it would be ruin to ; h.r business to admit. Some wore skin I tights. summing m>: The Chairman of the Quarter Sessions said that the common, law of the country made it quite clear that an innkeeper could not refuse to serve a traveller. The question of dress did not arise. He might say that the ' law did not allow the innkeeper to consider tbe dress of the traveller, nor would the pubiic suffer it th'arfc an innkeeper should have tbe right to pick and' choose his customers by their clothes. Tlie law was that an innkeeper should keep a tolerably decent and proper room for refreshment. But a customer could not choose his or her own room. It was for the landlord to say, " You must use this or that room," just as he chose, so long as the room was decent and proper for tbe pirrpose. Tlie^ only- question' to be decided was whether this bar-parlour was a reasonably fit room for a llady to lunch in. The jurv, after ten minutes' consultation, decuied that it was. They brought in a verdict of " Not guilty,'' and the charge against Mrs Spraffue was dismissed. There was applause, in. Court, the gallery beinsr on the side of tfie innkeeper. Lady Harberton, questioned afterwards as 1, *o future proceedings, tliousrht tbere would be none in this case. Therefore the gr°at question of whether knickerbockers disqualify a lady for liincli lias still! to be fought.