The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-03-23
LAW FOR HOTEL GUESTS.
They Must Leave if the Landlord
Wishes, Even if They Pay Their
Bills.

London News: In the court of ap-
peals yesterday Miss Lamond appealed
against the order of a divisional court.
This was case in which the appellant
sought to recover against the Gordon
Hotel company. the proprietors of the
Metropole hotel, Brighton, for refus-
ing to supply her with accommoda-
ton She had been there for nearly
II months, and the manager OF the
hotel informed her that she would have
to leave. She had stated that she IN
tended to stay there. There was no
question of misconduct or inability TO
pay, and Mr.. Rose Innes contended
that the hotel was obliged to find her
accommodation so long as the relation
ship of guest and host obtained
The master of the rolls asked if this
lady could live at the Metropole as
long as she liked if she had glass of
milk in the morning and lived on bis
cufts and water for the rest of the
day. cloud laughter.)
Mr.. Rose Innes contended that she
could. If it were not so, the hotel
proprietor would have enormous pow
erS. 30 4 II xsH2R
The Master of the Rolis-So would
the guest if it were so. Oaughter).
Mr.. Carson followed Mr.. Rose Innes
on behalf of the appellant. and said
that the stand the hotel company had
taken was that they were entitled TO
turn the plaintiff out without any just
cause, and he thought that was a
broad power. There was no SUCCESS
ton that there was insufficient room
in the hotel, or that the lady had not
paid or could not pay. Hotel pro-
prietors held themselves out now as
persons to receive any suitable men,
Der of the public so long as that person
was willing to pay and to conform to
the rules of the hotel.
Mr.. Asquith, queens counsel, said
that the proposition seemed to be that
if a person came to a hotel and Staid
there for a night he could become an
irremovable squatter Uaughter.) In
point of fact, the hotel keeper in this
case gave reasonable notice of the
termination of the contract as between
host and guest.
The master of the rolls said if the
court were to decide the case as it had
been asked to decide it, it would be
one of infinite Importance; but it was
not one of such Importance. The case
was that of a young lady who went to
Brighton with the intention of going
nowhere else ten months ago, and she
put up at the Hotel Metropole 1t
looked as if she had gone there to stay
permanently and the directors of the
hotel gave her notice to leave. Her re-
ply was, 81 shall stay until the hotel
is burned aughter)-meaning
obviously that she should stay there
as long as she liked. However, the
defendants did not take any steps to
remove her at once; they gave her a
months notice to leave, and as she did
not leave they put her boxes in the
hall or entrance of the hotel, and pre-
vented her re-entering it. For this the
plaintiff brought the present action.
There was no evidence of injury being
done to herself, nor of any negligence
as regards her goods. Therefore the
county court judge was right in find
ing against her. The lady at the time
was no longer a traveller. according to
English custom, and the defendants.
as innkeepers, were justified in refusing
her the hotel after reasonable notice
The appeal would be dismissed, with
costs.