LIABILITIES OF BOARDINGHOUSE KEEPERS.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4380, 28 March 1893, Page 3

LIABILITIES OF BOARDINGHOUSE KEEPERS.

At the Resident Magistrate's Court, ChrUchuroh, lately, before Mr H. S. Wardell, R.M., Catherine Hammond, deaotibi-d as a widow,. sued Annie Ilolmcß, keeper oF a boardinglioubo in Manchester sireot, known us Holmes' Temporanco rlotol, for the sum of £lO, the value of property alleged to bo illegally detained. Mr Ikrges for plaimifi, Mr Widdowson for defendant, The plaintiff, a rather attractive person, stated that about tbree woekß »go, she, with her dattghter, in company with a Mr Neville went aj man and wile to the defendant's lionsc. Neiillo made arrangomenta for tlieir board, and' she passed as bis wife, he having promised to marry her hb soon as lie hud settled his business, She bad with her a box, a bag, and a parcel; Neville appears not to htwo had any lugwuo. Aftor being there thirteen days Neville went out saying he had some business to attend to. In the evening she got a telegram from him irom Lyttelton, saying ho was afraid lie could not return that night. He did not return, and in tho morning defendant told plaintiff she wanted her rooms, She asked plaintill who would pity, aud plaintiff snid Neville would, of course. Sho had to leave the bouse, hut defendant retained her luggage, for tho value of which she now brought her action, Plaintiff offered to pay proportionately for the accommodation of. herself and daughter providing she was allowed to have her things. This defendant would not agreo to, and in consequenco of their detention plaintiff had beon unable to take a situation. Sho was unable to pay, or ulia would have done bo ; ehe had not a shilling in tho world. Defendant had uover rendered her an ao* count, A clerk in Mr Bruges office deposed that he demau, dod plaintiff's things, and defendant refused to give them up, Ho asked her from whom she expected payment. She said she expected Mr Nevillo would pay as any respectable man toiU, Mr Widdowson submitted that there was no case to answer. Defendant had a right to detain the things. Ho quoted the judgment in Thompson v Lacy, reported in 38, mid A,288, where it is laid down tint "an inn-keeper or keeper of a house providing general accommodation for wayfarers whatever may bo its name, has a general lien on the goods of his guests," Mr Bruges contended that this right only extended to keepers of hotels, the grounds of tho privilege being that they aio bound to talw in guests and are responsible fur their luggage, whereas » boarding-house keeper might rolnse nnybody, and is not bound to taks cure of tho goods of his lodger to any greater extent than lie would have cared for his own goods. Ho cited case o , and ufter argument the evidence ol the defendant was taken, which as to the main facts, did not differ materially from that of the plaintiff. Neville engaged the rooms and brought in the luggage. The parly owed £a Bs. At the end Df the first week plaintiff said she would see defendant paid. Defondant only claimed from plaintin i'u\? £>!>-pl?b}i?-,jnd daughter, In giving judgment Mr Wardell said lio to of opinion that dofendant had the right to a lien as held by an innkeeper, Judgment was for defendant, with costs f 1 Is, the understanding being that the goods would t'O givon up on payment of 12s, the charges against plaintiff and her daughter.—Ohristchurch Press.