THE JUDGE’S DILEMMA.

Western Star, 30 March 1920, Page 4

THE JUDGE’S DILEMMA.

NOWHERE TO HANG HIS TROUSERS. ' At the quarterly meeting of the Otaki Licensing Bench, held at Otaki recently (saj's the Levin Chronicle), Judge Gilfedder attended to lodge a complaint concerning hotel accommodation in Levin. He said he was a judge of the Land Court, and in consequence did a deal of.'travelling. He wished to complain of the exploitation hy some publicans.. No doubt tho cost of living had gone up, and the value of money had fallen, hut exploitation existed. For three days ho stayed at the Levin Hotel, and found the accommodation was not what it should have been for tho charges. A notice appeared that the tariff was 10s per clay, morning tea Gd extra. These charges he considered exorbitant. He was. given a.small room with no wardrobe, no chest of drawers, only oue hat peg, and bed doit did not even have a. post on which to hang his trousers. The value of tho whole furniture of the room would be about £l2, and would! only probably bring CIO if put in an auction room. The place was not lighted by electricity or acetylene, but this he did not mind. He did object, however, to being supplied with- a candle with no matches, which was inconvenient to non-smokers and ladies, andi reminded one of the stone age. There were not ov.en newspapers, to read'. Ho had called the licensee’s and the constable’s attention to the state of affairs, and the licensee said ho was complaining before he was hurt. He, however, had been charged 10s per day. In the interests of the travelling public he considered such a thing should! be stopped, and contended that if hotelkeepers wore to be allowed to charge what they liked their houses would scon become drinking dons. Ho was no prohibitionist, but he objected’ to such u

state of affairs. The license© should pay more attention to his hotel, and he suggested that the police reports in June should show what accommodation was provided at hotels, and the charges. At present hotelkeepers charged what they liked, and this led to exploitation. Judge Gilfedder emphasised the fact that he had no objection to paying, lusi per day for good accommodation, but did -object to pay 10s when 8s was quite sufficient. Such a thing was not right. Mr Stavely, at this juncture, said he had received a telephone message from Mr Suhan, who- asked him to attend to the complaint. Mr Suhan admitted that the accommodation, was not what it should have been, but this was due to Mr Gilfedder not telegraphing, as usual, for a room, while members of the Chautauqua, occupied the main rooms. As for morning tea, no one could say they were charged for it.

Judge Gilfedder: No one took it, hence no charge. Mr* Stavely, continuing, said matches had been left in the candlestick, hut had been taken by mistake by the servant. Judge Gilfedder said this was not s0 —the matches taken from the candlestick were his own, and notsupplied by the publican. The Chairman considered complaints should be put in writing, when investigations could be made, and then dealt with by the Bench. It was doubtful if the Bench ha,d( tbo power to fix the tariff, hut if the protest was published it night have the desired effect. It seemed that the hotelkeepers wanted to get rich quickly, and he. had no doubt that there was a lot in what the judge said. Judge Gilfedder said he would think the matter over, and probably put his complaint in writing. No doubt the press would publish his remarks, and this would do good. The chairman, in conclusion, said the Act gave the Bench very littlepower to deal with such mat-tea’s.