RESPONSIBILITY OF HOTEL KEEPERS.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2638, 22 June 1877, Page 3

RESPONSIBILITY OF HOTEL KEEPERS.

Spice v. Bacon.—This was an action to recover the value of jewellery los" at a hotel. It was tried before the Lord Chief Baron and a special jury at the Guildhall sittings, but after two questions as to the facts had been answered his lordship reserved certain legal points for argument before himself alone. The plaintiff was a civil engineer, carrying on business in Parliament street, Westminster, and the defendant was the proprietor of the Ship Hotel, Brighton. Upon Nov. 13 the plaintiff, having previously telegraphed, reached the defendant's hotel at nine o'clock in the evening; When he went to bed he placed his rings, watch, and instrument case on the dressing table and drawers, arid some money in his trousers pocket. The door he left unlocked, but closed. In the morning he discovered that the articles had been stolen, and that the door was partly open. The property was of the value of £130. 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 open in th^ morning. The jury found in favor of-lte defendant at the trial, but his lordBmp~ reserved leave to the plaintiff to move to enter judgment for him on the facts and points of law which had been raised. The learned counsel addressed the court on behalf of their clients;in Tefci'ence 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 goods which might have occurred from any cause whatever in the inn, but 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 had occurred by the wilful act, neglect, or default of the innkeeper. The statute, however, had not Wen complied with owing tb: the omission of the word " act " Ii! the. notice, without the exhibition of Winch the innkeeper was unable to claim "prp^ectioh^urider the statute. The word '/aci" was a materiai word, and was not covered by the subsequent words ; in the sentence*, He was of opinion that the plaintiff was not guilty of negligence in failing to lock his door under the circumatances, but there might be occasions when it would be otherwise. He trusted that '■- if any- doiibt remained after Ms decision the case should be taken to the Court-bf Appeal, and even to the court of last resort, in order..that so important a question might be definitely determined. His "lordship '■] directed judgment to be entered,for the plaintiff. ."'