Duties of Hotelkeepers

Feilding Star, Volume XIX, Issue 5, 6 July 1897, Page 2

Duties of Hotelkeepers

A Picton botelkeeper was prosecuted the other day for refusing to provide accommodation without valid excuse. A Mi-a Love was the prosecutor in one case. She swore that her husband tendered a £1 uoto to pay for fifteen beds for as many Maoris. Tbe defendant and his wife swore that no money was tendered. Some of the Maoris were called as witnesses, and corroborated the story of Mrs Love as to the conversation that passed, in English, though in tba box they demanded an interpreter, because they did not understand English, and ths magistrate eaid be could not accept their evidence as that of competent witnesses. The main defence was that all the bedrooms savo one were occupied, and the defendant and bis wife sworo that they offered this one vacant room for tho accommodation of the complainant and her husband. They did not, however, accept the offer, bat left tbe premises. The magistrate (Mr J. Allen} said: "Of course tbe beds were not all occupied, as in some of the toomß there was more than one bed, but the defendant said he objected (and I think properly objected) to rouse his lodgers out of bed between one and two o'clock in the morning for the purpose of turning strangers iuto tbeir rooms to occupy the spare beds. Complainant, who very ably conducted her own case/stated she bad bioßgbt tto as a test aotieft to find

ont if publicans could refuse accommodation to Maoris. I have no hesitation in saying (although this is not perhaps a fair test case) that respectable Maoris who can pay for the accommodation provided, hive just as much right to require accommodation at any hotel as any white man. It is not reason* bl o in small districts to .go to atfjf hotel at about one o'clock in the morning and demand accommodation for fifteen persons; very few hotelkeopers in such districts could supply that amonnt of accommodation. In this particular case if it bad been clearly proved that accommodation bad been refused to these respectable Maoris without valid excuse, I should have inflicted sneb a fine that would no doubt havo prevented any repetition of tbe offence. Ido not think the charges have been clearly proved. I therefore dismiss both informations." Costs were refused to defendant.