Fined for Refusing a Traveller a Meal.

Feilding Star, Volume XV, Issue 347, 23 June 1894, Page 4

Fined for Refusing a Traveller a Meal.

The adjourned case in which Wm. H Saunders, licensee of Stunders Hotel. Johnaonville, was charted with »■ fusing to supply a meal to Thomas Wm. G'6*e and Alfred Thomas, on April 3rd, was called on in the Maeistrnte's Court yes« terday, before Mr Martin is. M , and Mr Pickerine, J P Mr Wilford, for the defence, called Edward Harrup, who stated that a mun whom he believt'd was Giese, asked for a cup of tea in a manner which led witness to believe be was merely joking. Mrs Saunders did not refuse them tea. Mrs v aunden», wife of the defendant, said that when asked for tea on the first visit of the men she said she had no tea ready, but would mike some. In the evening the men talk-d togpther for some tim«\ and hHoih 73d Giese said. " Now, misms, aren't you (j - to give n* a cup of tea ?'' She said, "You can have t*n, but jrou haren'l de« cided on it." He did not nun in a«k for tea. William H. Saunders. the defend, ant, said his wife asked him if she »!iou!d make tea for the men, but he advised her not to, as he thought they wenjoking, They had beer and ginger a a respectively before them when they asked for tea. Mr Martin said that in order to acquit the defendant the Bench would have to believe that the itory told by these two men Giese and Thomas was simply concocted for no possible reason. Neither on cross exarr.i-iation nor in any other way had their veracity been disproved, and he was not prepared to >>e> Here not only that they had told untruths but they had entered into a conspiracy to have Mr. Baunders fined. They thought Mrs Saunders did refuse to get the men tea. and they did not think it was necessary thej should have tendered the mone> before being supplied. It Mrs Saunders bad wished to be sure they could pay it was her business to have asked them Whatever the English authorities might say, the Bench did not think the tender of money was necessary. The defendant would be fined £5, with il 10s costs. The maximum penalty was £10, with endorsement of license, but there had been such delay in the proceedings that the Bench d d not feel inclined u> inflict the full penalty, and would not endorse the license. — Times.