IMPORTANT TO INNKEEPERS.

Grey River Argus, Issue 104, 11 September 1866, Page 3

IMPORTANT TO INNKEEPERS.

(From the Wellington Independent.) The case, of "..Hamilton, v.. Osgood," heard before the Resident Magistrate on Saturday last, involves a very important. \ question as to" the liability : of innkeepers \J>v ,tho property of their guests, if said innkeepers have given warning that they will-not be,responsible unless certain rules of the house are complied with, and the valuables deposited* in a safe, which is expressly kept for the .purpose. The- facts of the case are ! briefly as 'follows" :— Mr Hamilton, a practical phrenologist, arrived Ida-Wellington on or "about the 30th or 31st Hnfast month, intending to give -lectures science of phrenology, and that he betoof himself to Osgood's, and was there < .apportioned a bedroom (No. 12),' into which his . carpet-bag was deposited, and ' he was informed that he would be required to leave the key of the room in the office •when he left: This injunction Mx Hamilton complied with after he had taken Ins clothes from the bag arid hung them on the pegs, in the room, and^ deposited his cash-box,- ■ containing money, correspondence, and trinkets, in it. There was no lock attached to the bag, biit the cash-box was. locked, and the plaintiff could swear that the money, &c, was safe' when he left the/room, as .he had occasion to go to it to take some money out for current expenses.- . Mr Hamilton '.-had "visited the room several times between the time he first, took possession and., the Tuesday evening on which the box was discovered, - and had never noticed anything that would lead Mm to suspect that the cash-box had been removed until the night in question, when he found the bag looked flat, and his suspicions being aroused, lie went to ■the bag and found the box had been abstracted; He immediately gave the alarm , and Mr Oagood, who was in bed at the time, immediately communicated with the •police. Not being able to trace the missing property, Mr Hamilton was told to quit the house, Mr Osgood assuming his story to be untrue: Mr Hamilton did leave the house, bxrt was obliged to do so without paying Ms bill, as the money he had kept for " incidental expenses " was taken with the edsh-box. Subsequently the police succeeded in -tracing the box to an outhouse attached to the; Victoria Hotel, and the property, excepting the money, was returned to the plaintiff, but in such a state that a great portion of the trinkets and plates used in the science Were rendered useless. Mr Hamilton swore to the value of the articles destroyed, and admitted that lie had read the notice which was - hanging in Ms room, apprising travellers that the proprietor of the establishment would not be responsible for loss of any -property unless the description ; of it was given, and he had deposited it in a safe which he had provided for ite reception. After swearing to the steps he took after the robbery, the jjlaintiff was submitted to a severe cross-examination by Mr Bbrlase, who appeared for the defendant/ The line of defence adopted was to attempt to shake the witness's testimony by refering to acts alleged to have been committed in other parts of New Zealand and also in Australia. Plaintiff was asked r relative to the amount of money, in the box, and answered, after he had requested Mr Borlase~"not. to strike "Mm with his fist," /that' he had made a mistake about one sovereign in his examination, in chief; With respect to having been robbed of. some shirts, as alleged by counsel, plaintiff indignantly denied that Ms washerwoman had evqr deprived Mm of Ms under garments, or that he- had ever told the hotel keeper, into whose house Jie . went in Napier, that he had no money to pay for Ms, tea. Mr Borlase then, asked the plaintiff if he had ever been tried in East Maitland for felony, to wliichhe answered that he was brought up on a : charge of "inciting to the commission of a felony " and acquitted. ' Mr Hamilton acknowledged to the fact that he had been prosecuted for stealing the skull of a black fellow named Jimmy, or Jim Grow— hut the >sltull was taken for purely scientific '•purposes, 1 the man having been a great ?jnurderer, before he expiated Ms crimes on the gallows. Mr Hamilton here ex-' ,pr ( essed a ; desire to " have " Mr Borlase's Jiead^as he -\yas sure it would prove most valiiable to Mm for ' Scientific purposes— a ." ramark which provoked much laughter in Court. Mr Brandon re-examined the witness to show that these charges had not 'affected' the character of his client in the least, as a few. months after he stood ah 'election' against Mx Daryell, an eminent solicitor, arid was only defeated by two or three votes. Mr Borlase addressed the Court, contending that there was no case <io be adjudicated upon, as the plaintiff had placed Mmself out of Court by not with the printed directions '^ which .he had seen on entering :the house. •liS ''support "of ! :.*ihis argument lie quoted L eases; inipbirit from " Addison on Wrongs "aiid their Remedies," " Storey on the Law of Bailments," "Smith's Leading Cases," and contended that the. law was quiteplain uponthepoint. It would, he said, be preposterous to hold an innkeeper responsible.; for "valuables," as he could show that Ms x client had .frequently «as niuch as L2OOO worth^of pi"opertyjleft in his care. . In an establishment- 'where hundreds ibf travellers resorted every week, it would be ruinous to admit the liability, 1 when precautions had been taken 'as in .this case., and,sDesides> it would open the . way for unprincipled people .to trade upon, such liability by assuming a loss wMch" had iibt in reaUty taken place at all. Mr Brandon ' said that Ms learoied friend's argument -was very well so far as it went. He admitted that they would be out of Couri if Ms client had lost a sum of L2OOO or even lj_sQp, but it was preposterous to suppose that a 'traveller, on entering a -licensed -hbuae^ was to- divest Mmself of his watch, chain,, rings, and other articles of jewelery; and, after turning* out Ms pockets, to deposit all for safe keeping in the hands of the landlord.. ; ; He failed to see how a gentleman could ask .another to partake of champagne witli-MmV or how it would be possible to liquidate, the cost of the various "incidentals*' which a traveller is sure to require. The Magistrate ; remarked that, the. case seemed to Mnge upon whether the notice put ~in wassuflii: cient <to' exonerate the innkeeper from liability, and aa^e, wished to take tinie to consider thecase'; he should reserve judgment Until Tuesdayi On thui day^ judgment was given for ihe. plaintiff, L 25 and, caats. - ' '^'' : '"'"': " ; " '". .. - -^.. "..