RESPONSIBILITY OP HOTELKEEPERS.

Inangahua Times, Volume IV, Issue 40, 11 July 1877, Page 2

RESPONSIBILITY OP HOTELKEEPERS.

Spice 7. Bacon.— This was an action to recover the value of jewellery, lost at an hotel. It was tried before the Lord Chief Baron and a special jury at the sittings, but after two questions us to the facts hdd been Answered, his lordship reserved certain legal points for argument before himself alone. ' The piauitiß was a civil* engineer, carrying on business ,„ Parliament street, West, minster, and the defendant was the propnetor of the Ship Hotel, Brighton. Upon Nov. 13 the plaintiff, having previously telegraphed reached the deYendant s hotel at nine o'clock in the evening. When he went to bed he placed his ring! watch, and instrument case on the dress. ,ng table and Jrawers, and some money m his trousers pocket. The door he left unlocked, but closed. I n the morning he discovered that tho;articles had been stolen, and that the door was partly open The property was of the value of £13 \ The action was brought to recover the value from the landlord, on the ground that the loss had occurred through 'his default in not taking sufficient precaution, either, to prevent the robbery or to detect the robber and the goods, by searching the inmates and the hotel itself before the doors of the hotel had been thrown opeu in the morning. The jury found in favor of the dafendant at the trial, but his lord*, ship reserved ieare to the plaintiff to move to enter judgment for him on the fact and points of law which had beea raised. The learned counsel addressed the court on behalf, of their clients in reference to the point raised. The Lord Chief Baron, in giving his decision, said there was no doubt that before the passing of the Innkeepers' Act the innkeeper was liable for the loss of any goo is which might have occurred from any cause whatever in the mD, bu* since the passing of the Act the innkeeper's liability had been limited to £30, except in such cases when it should be proved that the'loss ha<| occurred by the wilful act, neglect, or. default of the innkeeper. The statute, however, had not beea complied with owing to the omission of the word " act" in the notice, witnout the exhibition of which the innkeeper was unable to claim protection under the statute. The wo<"l " act" was a material word, and was not covered by the subsequent w^ds iv the sentence. He was of' opinion that the plaintiff, was not guilty of negligence in. failing to lock his door under the circutnstances, but there might be occasions when it would be otherwise. H.e trusted' that if any doubt remained after his decision the case should be taken to the Court of Appeal, and even to the court of. last resort, iv order that so important a question might be definitely determined. His lordship directed judgment to be entered for the plaintiff.