King Examination

Lawyer C.A.G. Palmer was hired by King while Barclay chose to hire R.G. Couch. Palmer submitted the statement of claim on King’s behalf requesting damages for his denial. Their claim was based on the Innskeeper act that said a Innskeeper was required to serve all travelers who request lodging.

Couch responded by denying “each and every claim” presented by King. In addition, he denied that Barclay’s was covered by the Innkeeper act since an Inn was required to serve food - which Barclay’s did not. They also denied that King was a ‘traveller’ since he had a home in Calgary. At this point, both parties were examined by the others lawyer.

Couch largely based his questioning on King’s demeanor and whether or not Barclay felt threatened by his presence. The purpose of this was simple - to cast King as the ‘Angry Black Man’ figure and justify his refusal. Below are two excerpts from the King’s examination.

Couch: You weren’t angry in any way over what was said on the phone?

King: On the phone I was annoyed when I heard that he said he didn’t allow coloured people, but I wasn’t angry at that point.

Couch: Did you subsequently get angry?

King: Yes, I was quite angry.

Couch: Would you say your attitude was somewhat demanding?

King: No, I wouldn’t say that, not at the time, because at the time I went out there I didn’t know what his reasons for it. And I found many times in the past that people have what they think are good reasons for not wanting coloured people in their places. But they can’t seem to get through their heads is that what one person does, the rest of the people don’t. And I was quite sure if he said that he didn’t allow coloured people he must have a reason, I wanted to find out what the reason was.

Couch appears to then move away from this line of questioning and moves to asking about relatively mundane details of King’s timeline. Then he asks a question that catches King off guard.

Couch: How big is Mr. Barclay?

King: How big is he?

Couch: Yes.

King: Well, I wouldn’t say he is a large man, I would say he is a rather small man.

Couch: In comparison with you?

King: Yes, in comparison with me he would be, he is about the same height but I imagine he is quite slender.

This additional question stands out to me since it serves no purpose in verifying whether or not King’s account of events were true. Instead, it aims to build on the ‘Angry Black Man’ narrative and to justify the idea that Barclay was intimidated by King.

King’s examination then ended with Couch being unable to show inconsistencies in his account.

Barclay Examination

As explained above, Barclay denied ‘each and every’ accusation by King. However, as Sarah Hamill - a legal scholar - notes, “the problem for Barclay was that the two most convincing non-racist explanations for his refusal were unavailable for him.” The two reasons are as follows:

King’s license plate. According to Barclay, he chose to deny Barclay partly because he was not a ‘traveler.’ However, the questioning would reveal that Barclay did provide accommodation for locals. King was there to visit prostitutes. According to Barclay, two “undesirable” women were occupying a room at the hotel. If Barclay suspected that King was visiting these women then he would have grounds to refuse him entry. However, this presented a catch-22 for Barclay. As Hamill notes, “Prostitution and Alberta motels may have had a close association, but it was always strictly unofficial, and Barclay could not admit to knowing or suspecting that these women were prostitutes.” Doing so would open him up to legal challenges.

The examination by King’s lawyer, Palmer, also poked a number of holes in Barclay’s story. As noted above, King was told that there was no vacancy. The truth was later revealed in the questioning.

Barclay: Mr. King came in and said, “I want a room.” As a rule people ask, “Have you a room.” He said, ‘I want a room.” I said, “i have no room.” He said --

Palmer: If you would just stop there. When you said you had no room that was not, in fact, true was it?

Barclay: No, no, no

Palmer: Go on?

Barclay: But it was a good excuse.

Palmer continues pushing this line of questioning and attempts to find out why Barclay felt that King was belligerent. The reasoning turned out to be relatively mundane.

Palmer: Apart from having use the words, “I want a room,” was there anything belligerent in Mr. King’s attitude before you said you had no vacancy?

Barclay: Yes. When people come in, “I want a room.” I think it is belligerent.

Palmer: You think that just those words constitute belligerency?

Barclay: In my opinion, people as a rule are polite.

Personally, it is quite surreal that anyone would believe that Barclay was threatened by King based on him simply asking for a room. Regardless, Barclay and his lawyer attempted to justify their refusal by relying on old racist stereotypes of Black men.

In addition, they heavily relied on Barclay being exempt from the ‘Innskeeper Act’ and that King not being considered a ‘traveller’ because he had a home in Calgary. These technicalities would form the basis for the court's decision.