A TRAVELLERS RIGHTS.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVIII, Issue 1047, 31 March 1910, Page 20

A TRAVELLERS RIGHTS.

WHAT IS THE POSITION OF A LICENSEE? THE ROYAL HOTEL CASE. The charge laid by the police against S. J. Flewellyn, licensee of the Royal Hotel, of refusing accommodation to a traveller, Mr. H. Temple, was continued in the Magistrate’s Court before Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M. At the previous sitting evidence had been called in support of defendant’s contention that Temple was an undesirable lodger. Sub-Inspector Hendrey appeared for the prosecution and Mr. Fred. Earl for the defence. Previous to calling evidence in support of the charge the sub-inspector asked the magistrate if anything had been submitted for the prosecution to answer, and if the Court thought that a valid reason had been put forth for refusing the complainant accommodation. The evidence showed that Temple was sober and well-behaved at the time he asked for admission, and no evidence of disorderly conduct had been adduced.

Mr. Kettle thought there was a case to answer. He said the question he had to decide was whether ..he licensee was justified. The evidence that had been given showed that comolainant had said the food in the Hotel was not fit for pigs, and that the house was the worst conducted house in New Zealand. He had also threatened the licensee and his servants. Sub-Inspector Hendrey said he had further evidence to bring on these points. Mr. Kettle went on to say that if the evidence was true the licensee was justified in the action he took. If the complainant went to the house with the idea of making himself objectionable it would be monstrous to allow such a thing. No hotelkeeper under such circumstances would be able to conduct his house in comfort. Mr. Earl: One of the chief objections to Mr. Temple was that he was always discussing the house and the proprietor with the guests and servants. Mr. Kettle: It would have been c ar better for him if he had taken his complaints before the Licensing Committee, and not go about raising Cain. Why did he want to force himself into the hotel if he had such a bad opinion of it? Sub-Inspector Hendrey: Everything depends, according to the Act, on “the conduct of the guest,” and I contend that the words “conduct cf

the guest” refer tp his conduct jvhen applying for admission, and not to anything which happened on a previous occasion. Charles Frederick Boulton, a retired manufacturer, said he had known Mr. Temple for 23 or 24 years. Temple was a man of good character. Sub-inspector Hendrey: Would it be a fair thing to describe him as a “crotchefty old rascal?” Witness: I would hit any man that said so. MR. TEMi’LE’S VERSION. •• Henry >Temple, ..engineer arid -sales 1 clerk for some English firms, stated that his home was in Sydney. During his visits to Auckland for some years past he had stayed on several occasions at the Royal Hotel. On his other visits .to the house the hotel, was conducted by other proprietors, fie considered the hotel was well managed by the present proprietor. When witness arrived in Auckland in Febru : ary he. was suffering from the effects of dengue fever, which he had contracted in Queerislahd. He had no rippetite, rind one of the waiters named Jackson was most'kind and attentive to him and did his best to tempt witness to.-eat Something. 7‘ Cdmpl'i"m mt made; mo. complaints to ! anybody in regard . to the, condrici' of. the hotel. The lintel ; as well as any hotel of its class. To Mr. Hendrby: Only on one ocicasiori. had witri'ess endeavoured to give advice to the licensee. There was a Mr: Davis staying in the hotel, who complained to the waiter about some of the food on his wife’s plate. The man went out and called for his account. Witness heard some high words between Davis and Flewellyn. A day or two after, complainant was at the Central Hotel, and heard some people talking about the row with Davis. He told Flewellyn what had beep said, and; the defendant made disparaging remarks about’ Davis. “I thep .told him,” said witness; “that he iPas very/foolish making remarks agajnst people, and. that he would get into trouble some ‘of these days.” This was the only occasion on which witness had said, any thing to the licensee, about the hotel. He had said to the licensed that he thought he was very foolish in allowing his daughters to occupy the supper-room when other guests wanted to go there. To Mr. Kettle: Witness was not annoyed at being , kept, waiting. Witness, continuing, said that Flewellyn interjected that his daughters could stay in the room as long as they liked, and told witness to mind his own business. Mrs. Flewellyn then made a running attack on him, with her tongue, calling him various names, saying “Knock him down, Flew ” “Kick him out, Flew.” She kept up a jrunning . .fire, of the same words. “ The licensee© wanted to fight me ” proceeded- witness; “and just for a lost, my temper,, and I said that „ Iwould make- it very hot for hipi.” Witness saw he 1 had made a mistake, and apologised. A day or two after this incident complainant went to Whangarei. Prior to returning to Auckland he sent a telegram to Flewellyn, saying he was coming to the Royal Hotel again. The licensee replied by wire that there was no accommodation available. Witness thought that Flewellyn was either joking or' bluffing.. “When I returned to Auckland,” said witness, “ I drove up to the Royal Hotel, and was refused admission. 1 then drove to the police station, and returned with Sergeant Ferguson. The Sergeant was admitted, but the licensee refused to admit me, saying, .“you are an undesirable character,.and. _will_not be allowed here.”

-,.T o iMri Kettle: JaCk&ori’s evidence was not true. • Witness had never said to mm that the food' at the ■ hotel was not fit for pigs, and that it was the worst managed hotel he had ever been in. The evidence of Farrington, the witness said, surprised him, as Farrington was not in the room at the time the alleged conversation took

Mr. Kettle: Which is a polite way of saying the man fs a liar. Witness: I suppose so. In answer to the alleged Savage Club incident, witness was not conscious of saying anything offensive The incident happened 15 years ago. He had related the same anecdotes in many clubs. He characterised the evidence of Miss Leharty as sheer misrepresentation. He had never said that the place was going to the dogs, and did not discuss the licensee’s wife with her at any time; nor did he pass any disparaging remarks about Mrs. Flewellyn’s figure.

Mr. Earl: Is it not an extraordinary thing that so many people have told lies about you? Witness: I think all the evidence is a sheer conspiracy against me. The witnesses’ evidence is virtually perjury. I cannot understand why "they have made such statements. Mr. Earl: The.only person who has told the truth is-your worthy self?— I dp not say that. Some of the wit-' nesses have • stated what is partly true. How? <io you account for Mr. Flewellyn losing his temper, and calling you a bounder arid waster, if you were such a mild sort of man?—l think he was inspired by his wife, who lost-her temper. ; / . 77: . Do 1 understand that yoj Were uning to submit tamely to the epithets used, by returning again to the hotel? —I thought everything had passed over. In answer to the inagistrate, witness admitted that he did not think there might be trouble if he went'to the hotel. ' ' To Mr. Earl: There would have been no difficulty iri witness going to another hotel. This closed the witness’ examination, and the case was adjourned till next day. ■ ■ ' ’ ’ ' Walter Edwin Faulkner, who had been staying at the Royal Hotel during part of the time Mr. Temple was staying there, stated that he had no complaint to make against Mr. Temple. He never heard him make any complaint against anyone in the hotel. Witness had not heard any of the other guests make complaints about Mr. Temple, excepting he heard one or two say that Mr. Temple was a bit boring, but even that was said in a semi-jocular manner. He never heard Mr. Temple say anything of an objectionable nature. Mrl Temple had not told lewd stories in witness’ presence. He may have said something on occasion which very narrow-minded people might object to, but witness did not consider any of his stories offensive. Witness never saw or heard Mr. Temple do or say anything at any time that a gentleman ought not to do or say. Mr. Earl briefly cross-examined the witness, and the case was then adjourned until Wednesday. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, further evidence was given. William Woodward, formerly licensee of the Royal Hotel, said Temple had stopped with him, and he had no complaint whatever against him. In answer to the Bench, witness said that if a man used certain language alleged to have been used by Temple, witness would refuse him admission. Alfred Mason, cab driver, gave evidence as to Temple being refused admission to the Royal Sergeant Ferguson was also examined on this point. Mr. Hendrey had nine witnesses to speak as to Temple’s general character, past and present, but decided not to call them after the Magistrate’s expression of opinion that he was quite prepared to believe that Temple had behaved well up to the time he stopped at the Royal Hotel. The question was as to his conduct in the Royal Hotel. A witness named Farrington was recalled by Mr. Earl to. contradict a statement made by Temple as to Farrington not being present at the hotel on a certain occasion. It had been suggested that his (Farrington’s) evidence was coloured because he was a friend of the Flewellyn family, but this was not so. He had not previously known the Flewellyns.

THE CASE DISMISSED.

MR. KETTLE’S SCATHING COMMENTS. His Worship, in giving judgment, said that in his opinion the evidence sufficiently justified the licensee in refusing admittance to Temple. Defendant had told Temple by telegram, before he came down from Whangarei’ that he declined to book a room, and yet Temple attempted to force himself on the licensee, and assert what he considered his legal right by means of the police and the present prosecution. He came down from Whangarei apparently with the deliberate intention of testing the matter of his entry. The police undertook the prosecution without the licensee having been given an opportunity of putting down in writing the full reasons he had for refusing Temple admission to the hotel. The question arose, “Were there valid reasons why Mr. Flewellyn should refuse this admission?” in the opinion of the Court there were. His worship saw no reason to doubt

the evidence of the two waiters as to what Temple had said about the house and the food; he saw no reason to doubt Mr. Farrington’s evidence as to what took place on- that memorable evening in the vestibule; and he saw no reason to doubt the evidence of the’ barmaid as to what took place in the bar. Temple admitted in the witness-box that he had nothing to complain about in the hotel. Taking into consideration his remarks to the waiters about the house and the food, his conduct in the vestibule, when he made himself a nuisance to the licensee and the other people in the hotel, his Worship considered the licensee was justified in excluding the man from the house. Furthermore, Temple’s repetition in the bar of the two lines, and applying them to the wife of the licensee, was a gross, gratuitous, and cowardly insult to the hostess, and if Mr. Flewellyn had known of his conduct on that occasion he would have been perfectly justified in taking him by the scruff of the neck and kicking him out of the hotel. For a man of his education to go into a public bar and speak of the landlady in the two disgusting and filthy lines (of which he seemed very proud) was conduct that could not meet with the approval of any persons who understood what decency and good conduct meant. For these reasons the information would be dismissed. In answer to the Bench, Mr. Earl said he would apply for costs. It was an unfair and improper advantage on the part of the police to allow a man like Temple to shelter himself behind a prosecution laid by a police sergeant, who knew nothing about the matter. Mr. Flewellyn had explained fully to the police that the man was refused admission because he was an objectionable person. The Magistrate pointed out that the matter was more of l a private one, and not of general public interest. Temple had remedies, and the Court could not understand why the police had taken up the case, or why they had not got an indemnity as to costs from Temple, As there was some doubt on the question of giving costs against the police, this matter was allowed to stand over for a week, when it will probably be argued. Sub-Inspector Hendrey, remarked that it was possible the whole matter would go further, and be heard in another place. His Worship said he would like it to do so. It would be interesting to hear Mr. Justice Edwards on the question of Temple’s conduct