Skip to main content

Full text of "The law of hotel life, or, The wrongs and rights of host and guest [microform]"

See other formats





,J |3.2 




m '""^ 




















23 west MAIN STREET 

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 

(716) 873-4S03 




Collection de 

Canactian Institute for Historical Microreproductions 

Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 


Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
original copy available for filming. Features of this 
copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
which may alter any of the images in the 
reproduction, or which may significantly change 
the usual method of filming, are checked below. 







Coloured covers/ 
Couverture de couleur 

I I Covers damaged/ 

Couverture endommagde 

Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
Couverture restaurie et/ou peliiculde 

I I Cover title missing/ 

Le titre de couverture manque 

I I Coloured maps/ 

Cartes gdographiques en couleur 

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 

I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 

Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 

Bound with other material/ 
Reli6 ^yec d'autres documents 

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
along interior margin/ 

La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
distortion le long de la marge int^rieure 

Blank leaves added during restoration may 
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
have been omitted from filming/ 
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes 
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
pas 6t6 filmies. 

Additional comn.« nts:/ 
Commentaires suppldmentaires; 

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
qu'il lui a 6ti possible de se procurer. Les details 
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du 
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
modification dans la methods normale de filmage 
sont indiquis ci-dessous. 

I I Coloured pages/ 


This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 

Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 

Pages de couleur 

Pages damaged/ 
Pages endommagies 

Pages restored and/oi 

Pages restaur6es et/ou pelliculdes 

Pages discoloured, stained or foxei 
Pages d6color6es, tachet^es ou piqudes 

Pages detached/ 
Pages d6tach6es 


Quality of prir 

Quality indgale de I'impression 

Includes supplementary materit 
Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire 

I I Pages damaged/ 

I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ 

r~| Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 

I I Pages detached/ 

I I Showthrough/ 

I I Quality of print varies/ 

I I Includes supplementary material/ 

Only edition available/ 
Seule Edition disponible 

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
ensure the best possible image/ 
Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
etc.. ont 6t6 filmies d nouveau de fapon d 
obtenir la meilleure image possible. 














The copy filmed here has been reproduced tharfks 
to the generosity of: 

Nationai Library of Canada 

L'exemplaire filmi fut reproduit grAce A la 
gAnirositd de: 

Bibliothdque nationale du Canada 

The images appearing here are the best quality 
possible considering the condition and legibility 
of tho original copy and in keeping with the 
filming contract specifications. 

Les images sulvantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en 
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
beginning with the front cover and ending on 
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
or illustrated impression. 

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
papier est imprim6e sont filmis en commenpant 
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
derniire page qui comporte une empreinte 
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la 
premiere page qui comporte une empreinte 
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant nar 
la derniAre page qui comporte une telle 

The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
shall contain the symbol —^ (meaning "CON- 
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
whichever applies. 

Un des symboles suiwants apparaitra sur la 
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
cas: le symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
symbole V signifie "FIN". 

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
required. The following diagrams illustrate the 

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
filmds d des taux de reduction diff^rents. 
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film6 d pertir 
de I'angle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche A droite, 
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
illustrent la mdthode. 
















mrongs and Rights of tiost 


and muesi 



Of Osgoode riall, B^n7stcr-at-Law 



©he Biucrsido )i>,;c88, (j;ambr,i<l3o. 

6/ 31"? o 


Copyri;^ht 1S79, 





The autlior knows as well as did old Burton that 
" hooks arc so j)lentifiil that they serve to put under 
pies, to l:ij) spice in, and keep roast meat from hurn- 
ing, " yet he ventures to offer another volume to 
the puhlio, trusting that some men's fancies will 
incline towards and approve of it; for '' writings are 
so many dishes, readers guests, hooks like beauty — 
that which one admires another rejects." He thinks 
he can say, in the words of Democritus Junior, that 
"as a good housewife out of divers fleeces weaves 
one i)iecc of clotli, a bee gathers wax and honey 
out of many flowers, and makes a new bundle of 
all, I have laboriously collected this cento out of 
divers authors, and that sine injuria. I cite and 
quote mine authors." 

This volume was written at the sucffjestion of the 
Publishers, as a companion to "The Wrongs and 
Rights of a Traveller," and is now committed to 
the tender mercies of general readers, and to the 
microscopic eyes of the critics who know every- 
thing. Doubtless mistakes will be found; )>ut if 
every one knew the law who thinks he does, law- 
yers would starve, 

R. V. II. Jr. 

Kingston^ Ont.^ Jlarch^ 1870. 















A CoiniON L\N AND INXKEEPEB, " - - 1 

City House axd Manners, j^ 

Accidents, IIooms, Dogs, gj 

GUEST.S, AVageks, Games, gg 

Safes and Baggage, -^^ 

FiiiE, Hats, and IKtrglars, 97 

Horses and Stables, jj^ 

What is a Lien ? ^3^, 

Duties of a Bo.uiDiNG-IIousE ICeeper, - - 152 
More ahout Boarding-House Keepers, - - loo 
Charms of Furnished Ap.uit^iexts, - . 173 
Notice to Quit and Turning Out, - - . 139 







The lust kiss was ^/wcn — iho last oinl»ra(;e over 


(1 a sto 

>f 1) 


<l laiiLiliti 


and, aiMKl a storm ot Jiiirraiis ana laiiL^inor and a 
liailstorm of old slipiHM's and uncookiMl rico, we 
(lashed away from my two-hours' bride's father's 
country mansion in ihe new family carriage, on our 
wcddini^ tour. The prorj^rammo was that we wore 
to stay at the little village of Blank that night, aTid 
on the morrow wo expected to reach the city of 
Noname, where we would he able to find convey- 
ances more in accord with the requirements of tho 
last quarter of tho niiu'tecnth century of grace 
than a carriage and pair. 

Arm in arm and hand in hand we sat during the 
long, bright June afternoon, as the ]>rancing grays 
liurried us along the country roads — now besido 
grassy meads, now beneath o'erhanging forest trees, 
then up hill, next down dale, while little squirrels 
raced along beside us on the fence tojts, (»r littlo 
Btreamlets dashed along near by, bubl'Mig, foam- 
ing, roaring and sparkling in the sheen of tho 
merry sunshine, and the broad fans of insect an- 
gels gently waved o\er their golden disks as they 
floated i)ast; all nature, animate and inanimate, 
Bmiling merrily upon us, as if quite conscious who 
and what wo were. But little did wo note tho 
beauties of sky or field, cot or hamlet, bird or 
I. ri3 



flower, for W!is it not our first clrivo since the niys« 
lie word of the wliite-robed minister of the Clmrch 
had made of us twain one flesli ? The beauties of 
the otlier's face and disposition al)S()rhed tlie con- 
templation of eaeli of us. Once or twice, indeed, 
I felt inclined to make a remark or two anent the 
fields we passed; but rememberinL^ that I knew not 
a carrot from a parsni}), until it was cooked, or 
wheat from oats, except in the well-known forms of 
bread and jiorridge, and not wishing to be like Lord 
Erskine, who, on coming to a finely cultivated field 
of wheat, called it " a beautiful piece of lavender," 
I refrained. 

Love in itself is vory good, 
But 'tis by no means solid food; 
And ere our first day's drive was o'er, 
1 found wu wanted something more. 

So when at last, as the shadows began to lengthen 
and still evening drew on, we esjued in the vnlley 
beneath us the village in which was our intended 
resting ])lace, I exclaimed : 

"Ah ! there's our inn at last ! " 

" At last ! so soon wearied of my company ! " 
chid my bride, in gentle tones. " But why do peo- 
]Aq talk of a village 'inn' and a city 'hotel'? 
What is the difference between a liotel and an 

" There is no real difference," I rej)lied, glad to 
have the subject changed from the one Mrs. Law- 
yer had first started. " The distinction is but one 
of name, for ar hotel is but a common inn on a 



grander sc.ilo.^ Inn, tavern, and hotel are synony 

nious terms 


" What do the words roallv mean ? 


" Have you forgotten all your French ? Tlio 
word ' liotel ' is derived from the French liotd^ (for 
liostel,) and originally meant a }»alace, or residence 
for Inrds and great personages, and lias, on that 
account no doubt, been retained to distinguish the 

•e respectahle liouses of entertainment." 
" Well, what is the derivation of 'inn'?" qucr- 


my wi 


*'I was just going to say that tliat is rather ob- 
Bcure, but is probably akin to a Chaldaic word 
meaning ' to i)itcli a tent,' and is applicable to all 
liouses of entertainment.'^ Inns there were in the 
far distant East thirty-five centuries and more be- 
fore you apj)eared to grace this mundane sphere ;4 
although, when the i)atriarch Jacob went t«) visit 
his pretty cousins, he was n(»t fortunate enough to 
find one, and had to make his bed on the ground, 
taking a stone for his pillow." 

"And very famous in after years did iliat just 
mentioned pillow become," said Mrs. L., intcrrupt- 
ingly. "And much pain and grief, as well as glory 
and renown, has it brought to th(»se who have nsed 

"What meanest thou?" in my turn queried I. 

1 Taylor r. Monnot, 4 Ducr, 11^; Jonos r. Osborn, 2 Chit. 486. 

2 People V. Jouos, 54 X. Y. (Barb.) oil; St. Loui3 v. Siegrist, 
4t) ISIo. 5«j;5. 

8 Wharton's Law of Innkeepers, 8. 
*Geu. xlii:27. 


" Don't you know that npon that stone the sov- 
ereigns of England have been crowned ever since 
the first Edward stole it from the Scots, who had 
taken it from the Irish, who doubtless had come 
honestly by it, and that it now forms one of the 
wonders and glories of Westminster Abbey ?" 

" Indeed ! " I remarked, with an inflection in my 
voice signifying doubt. 

"I wonder who kept the first hotel, and what it 
was like," quoth my lady. 

" History is silent on both points," I replied. 
"But doubtless the early ones were little more than 
sheds beside a spring or well, where the temporary 
lodger, worn and dirty, could draw forth his ham 
sandwich from an antediluvian carpet-bag, eat it at 
his leisure, wash it down with pure water, curl him- 
self up in a corner, and, undisturbed by the thought 
of having to rise before daylight to catcii the ex- 
press, sleep — while tlio other denizens of the cabin 
took their evening meal at his expense." 

"But no one could make much out of such a 
place," urged Mrs. Lawyer. 

" Quito correct. Boniface, in those days, con- 
tented himself with an iron coin, a piece of leather 
stamped with the image of a cow, or some such 
primitive representative of the circulating me- 

*' Times are changed since then," remarked my 

" What else could you expect ? Are you a total 
disbeliever in the Darwinian theory of develop- 
ment ? Inns and hotels, in their history, are excel- 









lent examples of the truth of that hypothesis. Pro- 
toplasm maturing into perfect liumanity is as noth- 
ing to them. See how, through many gradations, the 
jjrimeval well has become the well-stocked bar-room 
of to-day ; the antique hovel is now the luxu- 
rious Windsor, the resplendent Palace, the Grand 
Hotel du Louvre; the uncouth barbarian, who 
showed to each comer his own proper corner to lie 
in, has blossomed into the smiling and gentlemanly 
proprietor or clerk, who greets you as a man and a 
brother ; the simple charge of a i)ieco of iron or 
brass for bed and board (then synonymous) has 
grown into an elaborate bill, which requires ducats, 
or sovereigns, or eagles to liquidate. But further 
discussion on this interesting question must be de- 
ferred to some future day, for here we are," I 
added, as we halted at "The Farmer's Home." 

"I don't believe that Joseph's brethren ever 
stopped at a more miserable looking caravansary," 
said my wife, in tones in which contentment was 
not greatly marked. " Are you quite sure that this 
is the inn? It has no sign." 

" That fact is of no moment," I hastened to re- 
ply. " A sign is not an essential, although it is 
evidence of an inn. Every one who makes it his 
business to entertain travelers, and provide lodg- 
ings and necessaries for them, their attendants, and 
horses, is a common innkeeper, whether a sign 
swings before the door, or no." ^ 

" And a common enough innkeeper he looks, in all 

iBac. Abr. lunk. B; Parker v. Flint, 13 Mod. 235; Dickin^ 
Bon f. Eodfiers, 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 179. 


conscience,'* Bakl Mrs. Lawyer, as mine host of tho 
signless inn a])pearetl upon the stoop to receive hia 
guests. Coatless lie was, waistcoat he had none ; 
the rim of his hat glistened briglitly in tlie decline 
ing sun, as if generations of snails had made it 
their favorite promenade ; his legs, or the logs of 
his pantaloons, were not pairs — they differed so 
much in length ; his boots knew not the glories of 
Day & Martin ; his face had hydropliobia, so long 
was it since it had touched water ; and " wildly 
tossed from cheek to chin the tumbling cataract of 
his beard." 

With the grace of a bear and the case of a bull in 
a china-shop, he ushered us into the parlor, with its 
yellow floor, its central square of rag-carpet, its 
rickety table, its antique sampler and gorgeous 
pictures on the walls, its festoons of colored paper 
depending from the ceiling, its flies buzzing on the 
window-panes. Sad were the glances we ex- 
champed when for a minute wo were left in this 
elegant boudoir. 

" What a nuisance that the other inn was burnt 
down last week, and that there is none but this mis- 
erable apology for one within thirty miles," I 

"'Tis but for a night," returned my wife, in con- 
Bolatory tones. " It is only what we might have 
expected, for saith not the poet : 

• Inns are naaty, dusty, fusty, 
Both with smoko and rubbish musty' ?'* 

Soon we mounted the groaning stairs to our 


dorraitory, and found the liouso to l>e a. veritable 

" Kind of old Hobgoblin Hall, 
Now somoNvlmt fallen to decay, 
With weather stains upon tlio wall, 
And stairways worn, and crazy doors, 
And creaking and uneven floors, 
And bedrooms dirty, bare, and small." 

The room assigned to us might have been smaller, 
the furniture might have been cheaper and older-— 
jwssibly ; but to have conceived my blooming bride 
in a more unsuitable j)luce — impossible. I asked for 
better accommodation ; Boniface shook his head 
solemnly, (I thought I heard his fe>v brains rattle 
in his great stupid skull) and muttered that it was 
the best he had, and if wo did not like it wc might 
leave and look elsewhere. 

" We must make the best of it, my dear. The 
landlord is only bound to provide reasonable and 
proper accommodation, even if there were better in 
the house ; he need not give his guests the preciso 
rooms they may select." ^ 

Wc resolved to display the Christian grace oi 

As speedily as possible we arranged our toilets 
and descended once more to the lower regions, 
with the faint hope that the dining-room might be 
better furnished with the good things of this life 
than either the parlor or bed-room. Sad to relate, 
the fates were still against us : wc found, on enter- 

1 Fell V. Knight, 8 Mees. & W. 2G9; Doyle v. Walker, 20 
Q. B. (Ont.)502. 


ing tho salle d, manger, n. couplo of small tables put 
together in tho middle of the room, covered with 
three or four cloths of different aires and dates of 
washing, and arranged as much like one as the cir- 
cumstanceS of the case would allow. Upon these 
Avcre laid knives and forks; some of the knife-hand- 
les were green, others red, and a few yellow, and as 
all tho forks were black, the combination of colors 
was exceedingly striking. Soon the rest of tho 
paraphernalia and tho comestibles appeared, and 
then Josh Billings' descrij^tion became strictly ap- 
plicable: "Tea tew kold tew melt butter; frido 
potatoze which resembled the chips a tew-inch 
augur makes in its journey thru an oke log ; bread 
solid; bicfstake about az thick as blister j^laster, 
and az tough as a hound's ear; table kovered with 
plates ; a few scared-tew-death pickles on one of 
them, and 6 fly-indorsed crackers on another; a 
pewterunktoon kaster, with 3 bottles in it — one 
without any mustard, and one with tew inches of 
drowned flies and vinegar in it." 

Fortunately, long abstinence came to our aid, 
and hunger, which covers a multitude of sins in 
cookery and " dishing up," was present, and. our 
manducatory powers were good ; so wo managed 
to supply tho cravings of the inner man to some 

" What is this ? " I asked of tho landlord, as he 
handed me a most suspicious looking fluid. 

" It's bean soup," he gruflly replied. 

"Never mind what it's been — what is it now?" 
I asked a second time. A smile from my wife 



revealed to inc my error, and I saved the astonished 
man the necessity of a rei)ly. 

At the taV)lo wc were joined by an acqiiaintanco, 
who informed me tliat he had great difficulty in 
obtaining admission to the house, as the innkeeper 
had a <},rudge against him. 

"No matter what personal objection a host may 
have, he cainiot refuse to receive a guest. Every 
one who opens an inn by the wayside, and jirofesses 
to exercise the business and employment of a com- 
mon innkeeper, is bound to afford such shelter and 
accommodation as lie possesses to all travelers who 
apj)ly tl' ere for, and tender, or are able to jiay, tho 
customary charges," ^ I remarked. 

" J]ut surely one is not bound to take the trouble 
to make an actual tender?" questioned my friend. 

" I am not quite so sure on that point," I replied. 
" Coleridge, J., once said that it is the custom so 
universal with innkeepers to trust that a person 
will pay before he leaves the inn, that it cannot 
be necessary for a guest to tender money before he 
enters.^ But, in a subsequent case. Lord Abinger 
said that he could not agree with Coleridge's opin- 
ion,^ and three other judges concurred with Abinger, 
although the court was not called upon to decide 
the matter. In fact, the point has never been defi- 
nitely settled in England. Text-writers, however, 

1 Taylor i', Huraplireys, SO Law J. 2G2; AVatson v. Cross, 2 
Duval, (Ivy.) 147; Newton v. Trigg, 1 Show. 27G; Common«. 
wealth V. Mitchell, 1 Phil. (Pa.) G3. 

2 Rex V. Ivcns, 7 Car. & P. 213. 

8 Fell V. Knight, 8 Mees. & \V. 270. 




» if * 

I. : 


i * 

think an offer to pay requisite,! and it has been so 
held in Canada." 2 

" But what," said my friend, " if the proprietor 
is rude enough to slam the door in your face, and 
you cannot see even an open window?" 

" Oh, in that case even Abinger would dispense 
with a tender." 3 

" It seems hard that a man must admit every one 
into his house, whether he wishes or no," said my 

" Reflect, my dear," I replied, " that if an inn- 
keeper was allowed to choose his guests and re- 
ceive only those whom lie saw fit, unfortunate 
travelers, although able and willing to pay for en- 
tertainment, might be compelled, through the mere 
caprice of the innkeeper, to wander about without 
shelter, exposed to the heats of summer, the rains 
of autumn, the snows of winter, or the winds of 

I or. 



"Do you mean to say that improper persons 
must be received ? " 

" Oh dear no ! A traveler who behaves in a dis- 
orderly or improper manner may be refused admis- 
sion,* and so may one who has a contagious disease, 
or is drunk.^ And, of course, if there is no room, 
admission mav be refused.*^ But it will not do for 


1 Wharton, p. 78. 

2 Doylo V. Walker, 2G Q. B. (Ont.) 502. 
8 Fell V. Kniglit, supra. 

* Howell V. Jackson, G Car. & P. 742; Moriarty v. Brooks, 
Ibid. G34. 
c Markham v. Brown, 8 N". II. 523; Fell v. Knight, supra, 
6 Ilex V. Ivens, supra; Fell v. Knight, supra. 





the publican to say that lie lias no room, if such 
statement be false; for that venerable authority, 
Rolle, says: * Si un hotelier refuse un guest sur 
pretense que son maison est pleine de guests, si est 
soit faux, action sur le case git.' " ^ 

"You don't say sol" said my friend, aghast at 
the jargon. I continued : 

"And a publican must not knowingly allow 
thieves, or reputed thieves, to meet in his house, 
however lawful or laudable their object may be."^ 

" Su])pose they wanted to hold a prayer-meeting, 
what then?" asked my wife. 

"I cannot say how that would be; but a friendly 
meeting for collection of funds was objected to. 
Kor should he allow a policeman, while on duty, 
to remain on his premises, except in the execution 
, of that duty. 3 And he may prohibit the entry of 
one whose misconduct or filthy condition would 
Bubjcct his guests to annoyance.* And I remember 
reading that Mrs. WoodhuU and Miss Claflin werv 
turned away from a New York hotel on the ground 
of their want of character." 

"Wlii.t if the poor hotel-keeper is sick?" in 
quired Mrs. Lawyer. 

"Neither illness, nor insanity, nor lunacy, nor 
idiocy, nor hypochondriacism, nor hypochondriasis, 
nor vapors, nor absence, nor intended absence, can 


1 Holl. Ahr. 3 F; AVliite's Case, Dyer, 158. 

* Marshall v. Fox, Law Hep. G Q. B. 370; Markbam v. Brown, 

8 JSIullins V. Collins, 43 Law J. M. C, G7. 

* ^L1rkham v. Brown, supra; Piukerton v. Woodward, 33 
Cal. 557. 



avail the laiullonl as an excuse for refusing adml*. 
sion.l Allbough the illness or desertitjii of his 
servants, if lie has not been ablo to replace theiji, 
might be an excuse; and perchance liis own in- 
fancy, and perchance not." 2 

■ " What can you do if lie refuses to let you in?" 
asked my friend, "lireak oi)en the door?" 
' "No, that might lead to a breach of the peace. 
You may cither sue him for damages, or have him 
indicted and fined; and it is also said in England 
that the constable of the town, if his assistance is 
invoked, may force the recalcitrant publican to re- 
ceive and entertain the guest.^ If you sue him you 
will have to prove that he kept a common inn ; * that 
you are a traveler,^ and came to the inn and de- 
manded to be received and lodged as a guest ; 
that he had sufficient accommodatioUjC and refused 
to take you in, although you were in a fit and 
proper state to be i-eceived,'' and offered to pay a 
reasonable sum for accommodation." 

" In most hotels they keep a register in which one 
is expected to inscribe his cognomen by means of a 
pen of the most villainous description; must ono 
give liis name, or may he travel incog, and without 
exhibiting his cacography ? " 

1 Bac. Abr. Inns, c. 4; Cross v. Andrews, Cro. Eliz. G22. 

2 Addison on Torts, 938. But see Com. Dig. vol. 1, p. 413. 
8 Curw. Hawk. 714. 

4 Cayle's Case, 8 Coke, 32. 

6 Rex y. Luellin, 12 Mod. 445; Reg. v. Rymner, L. R. 2 Q. B, 

D. 130. 
CFo'.i V Knight, 8 Mees. & W. 269. 

7 FeV J. Knight, supra. 





"An innkeeper has no right to pry into a guest's 
affairs, and insist upon knowing liis name and ad- 
dress,"^ I replied. 

" Talking al)(»ut registers," began my friend Jones, 
hut in tones so \o\V that what lie said must go in 
the foot notes. 2 

"Last summer," continued talkative Jones, "I 
tried to get quarters late one Saturday night nt a 
village inn, but the proprietor refused to admit me; 
and a venerable female put lier liead out of the 
'\vin(h)w, like Sisera's mother, and told me that 
they were all in bed, and that they could not take 
in those who i)rofaned the Sabbath day." 

"You might liave sued for damages," I said, "for 
tlio innkeeper being cosily settled in his bed for the 
night, or it being Sunday, makes no difference in 
a traveler's rights;*^ at least where, as in England, 
it is not illegal to travel on that sacred day." 

"I think you said that one must be a traveler be- 
fore one could claim the rights of a guest — is that 
an essential?" 

" Yes, a sine qua ?ion. Bacon says : ' Inns are for 

1 Rex V. Ivens, 7 Car. & V. 213. 

2 •' Did you seo that absurd paragraph concerning a traveler 
who was writing his name in tho book wlien a IJ. IJ. sallied 
out of a crack and took his way slowly and sedately across 
tho page. Tlio newly arrived paused and remarked: *I'vo 
been bh'd by St. Joo lieas, bitten by Jvansas City spiders, and 
interviewed by Fort Scot graybacks, but I'll bo liauged if I 
ever was in a place before where tho bedbugs looked over the 
hotel register to lind out whero your room was.' " 

"It is generally not necessary for them to take tliat 
trouble," I replied. 
2 iiex V. Ivens, 7 Car. & P. 213. 




passengers and wayfaring men, so that a friend or 
a neighbor shall have no action as :i guest ' ^ (unless, 
indeed, the neighbor bo on his travels ^j. The L.'itin 
word for an inn is, as of course you know, diversor^ 
iitrrij ))ecauso ho who lodges there is (juasi dlocrtois 
8C a via.'''* ^ 

*' What wretched food !" said my wife, as she 
helped herself to a biscuit. *' 'Tis enough to poison 



" It is by :io means a feast of delicacies — the brains 
of singing birds, the roc of mullets, or the sunny 
halves of peaches," returned our friend. 

" Well, my dear," I replied, " a ])ublican selling 
unwholesome drink or victuals may be indicted for 
a misdemeanor at common law; and the unhappy 
recipient of his noxious mixtures may maintain an 
action for the injury done ;4 and this is so even if 
a servant provides the goods without the master's 
express directions." ^ 

tt tt t? 'ff * 'ff 

A stroll through the village, and a little moraliz- 
ing beside the scarcely cold embers of the rival inn. 

" Imagination fondly stooped to trace 
The parlor splendors of that festive place, 
The whitewashed wall, the nicely sanded floor, 
The varuisli'd clock that clicked behind the door," 

passed the time until Darkness spread her sablo 

1 Bac. Abr. vol. 4, p. 448. » Cayle's Case. 

a Walling v. Potter, 35 Conn. 183. ■♦ Koll. Abr. «J5. 
6 1 Blackst. Com. 430. 




robe over all tl»o earth. "Wo sat outside our inn in 
tlie fresli air, and listened while the myriad crea- 
tures whieli seem born on every summer night u|> 
lifted in joy tlieir Ktridulous voices, l>il)iuiJf the whole 
chromatic; .scale with infinite Kelf-satisfaetion. In- 
numerable crickets sent forth wh.'it, perhaps, were 
gratulations on our arrival ; a colony of tree-toads 
aske<l, in the key of sharp major, after tlieir rela- 
tives in the back country; while the swell bass of 
the bull-frogs seemed to be, with deep and hearty 
utterances, thanking heaven that their dwelling- 
])laces were beside pastures green in cooling streams. 
For a while wc listened to this concert of Jilipu- 
tians risincT hii^her and higher as Nature hushed to 
sleep her children of a larger growth. Ere long, tho 
vilia:ie ])ell tolled the hour for retirincr. I told tho 
landlady to call us betimes, and then my wife and 
self shut ourselves up in our little room for the night. 
Very weariness induced the partner of my joys 
and sorrows to commit her tender frame to tho 
coarse bedclothes ; but before " tired Nature's sweet 
restorer, balmy sleep " arrived, and with repose our 
eyelids closed, an entomological hunt began. First 
a host of little black bandits found us out, and at- 
tacked us right vigorously, skirmishing bravely and 
as systematically as if they had been trained in the 
schools of that educator of fleas, ISignor Bcrtolotto, 
only his students always crawl carefully along and 
reverhop, as we found by experience that our fierce 
assailants did. After we had disposed of these light 
cavalry — these F sharps — for a time, and were again 
endeavoring to compose our minds to sleep, there 



t ': 



came a dt'taclinient of tlio B-flat brigade, of aider* 
manic proportions, pressing slowly on. Again there 
was a search as for hidden treasures. Fauirh ! what 
a time we had, pursuing and capturing, crushing 
and decapitating, hosts of creatures not to be n;imed 
in cars polite. Most hideous night, thou wert not 
sent for slumber! It would almost have been better 
for us had we been inmates of the hospital for such 
creatures at Surat, for there we would have been 
paid for the feast we furnished. Here we had the 
prospect of paying for our pains and pangs. 

I am an ardent entomologist; but I solemnly 
avow I grew tired that night of my favorite science, 
'Twas vain to think of shunber — 

Not poppy, nor manclragora, 
Kor all tliG drowsy syrups of the world, 

nor yet the plan adopted by the Samoan islanders, 
who place a snake, imprisoned in bamboo, beneath 
their heads and lind the hissing of the reptile highly 
soporific, could medicine us to that sweet sleep 
which nature so much needed. At length we arose 
in despair, donned our apj^arel, and sat down be- 
side the window to watch for the first briglit tints 
heralding the advent of the glorious king of day. 

"Must wc pay for such wretched accommoda- 
tion ?'' asked my wife, mournfully. I shook my 
head as I rej^lied : 

" I fear me so.^ We might escape ; 2 but I don't 
want to have a row about my bill in a dollar house." 

1 nart V. Windsor, 12 Meea. & W. Ca 

2 Sutton V. Temple, Ibid. 52, GO. 



As soon as morning broke wo began our i">repara. 
tions for an early departure from the purgatory in 
wlnich "wc liad i)asse(l the night. When we had 
descended, and Iiad summoned the hidy of the 
house to settle with her, my wife spoke strongly 
about the other occupants of our bed. 

The Woman hotly exclaimed, " You are mistaken, 
marm; I am sure there is not a single ilea in the 
whole house ! " 

"A single flea' " retorted my wife, with wither- 
ing scorn ; " a single flea ! I should think not ; foi 
I am sure that they are all married, and have large 
families, too." 

" Yes," I added, 

* The 1 ittlo flcaa liavo lesser fleas 
Upon their backs to Lite 'em ; 

The lesser lleas have other fleas, 
And so ad i)\finUum. " 

I tjl 


! I 

Chapter II. 


The next evening, as Mrs. Lawyer and this pres- 
ent writer were rattling along at the rate of thirty 
or forty miles an hour in the tail of the iron horse, 
my bride, imagining that she would like to know 
somewhat of the law, which had been my mistress 
for many years, and the C7mi(i of the honeymoon 
having already commenced, asked me what was the 
legal definition of an inn. 

I replied: "The definitions of an inn, like those 
of lovely woman, are very numerous : but perhaps 
the most concise is that given by old Petersdorff, 
who says it is * a house for the reception and enter- 
tainment of all comers for gain.' ^ Judge Bayley 
defined it to be a house where the traveler is fur- 
nished with everything he has occasion for while on 
the way." 2 

"I should dearly love to stop at such an inn,'* 
broke in my wife. "The worthy host would find 
my wants neither few nor small." 

" Oh, of course, the everything is to be taken not 
only cum grano sails but with a whole cellar full 
of that condiment. For instance, the landlord is 
not bound to provide clothes or wearing apparel for 

1 Peters. Abr. vol. 5, p. 159; Jeremy on Bailments, loO. 

2 Thompson v. Lacy, 3 B. & Aid. 203. See also Dickenson 
i;. Rodgers, 4 Humph. 179. 






his gucst.i But to proceed with our subject. Best, 
J., tried his hand — a good one, too — at definition' 
making, and declared an inn or hotel to he a house, 
the owner of which holds out that ho will receive 
all travelers and sojourners who are willing to pay 
a price adequate to the sort of accommodation 
provided, and who come in a state in wliich they 
are fit to be received ^ Another judge says it is a 
public house of entertainment for all who choose to 
visit it as guests witliout any previous agreement 
as to the time of their stay or the terms of pay- 
ment.2 The judges have, also, got off definitions 
of the word 'innkeeper.' It has been said that 
every one who makes it his business to entertain 
travelers and passengers and provide lodging and 
necessaries for them and their horses and attend- 
ants, is a common innkeeper.* But Bacon, very 
wisely and prudencly, adds to this descrii)tion the 
important words 'for a reasonable compensation.'^ 
One who entertains travelers for payment only 
occasionally, or takes in persons under an express 
contract, and shuts his doors upon those whom he 
chooses, is not an innkeeper, nor is he liable as 
euch.^ Stables are not necessary to constitute au 

1 Bacon's Abr. Inna, C. 

2 Thompson v. Lacy, 3 B. & Aid. 2S.3. 

8 Wintermuto v. Clarke, 5 Sand. 247; Pinkerton v. "Wood- 
ward, 33 Cal. 557. 

* Parker v. Flint, 12 Mod. 255; Parkhurst v. Foster, Salk. 

" Bacon's Abr. Inn. C. 

CLyonr. Smith, 1 Morris, 18 1; State r. Mathews, 2 Dev. & B. 
421; Bonner v. Welborn, 7 Geo. 290. But see Commonwealth 
u. Wetherboe, 101 Mass. 214. 





inn;^ nor is it essential that tlie meals should Ixd 
served at table cVhote.'^ A house for the reception 
and entertainment principally of emigrants arriv- 
ing at a seaport and usually remaining but a short 
time, is yet an inn."^ 

Here I stopped because I had nothing more to say ; 
but seeing that my wife was gazing out of the win- 
dow in a most inattentive manner, yet not wishing 
her to think that my fund of knowledge was ex- 
hausted, I added : " But a truce to this style of 
conversation. Remember that we are a newly 
married couple, and are not expected to talk so 

A pause ensuecl, during which, with great amuse- 
ment and no little surprise at the facts and doc- 
trines enunciated, we listened to the following 
dialogue between two rosy-cheeked Englishmen 
Bittinix in the seat behind us : 

• First Briton (loquitur). — " IIow disgusting it is 
to see those vile spittoons in hotels, in j^rivato 
houses, in churches — everywhere; and notwith- 
standing that their name is legion, the essence of 
nicotine is to be seen on all sides, dyeing the floors, 
the walls, the furniture." 

Second Briton. — "I have sometimes doubted 
whether the Americans expectorate to obtain good 
luck, or whether it is that they have such good for- 
tune ever attending upon their designs and plans 
because they expectorate so much." 

1 Thompson v. Lacy, supra. 

2 Krohii V. Sweeny, 2 Daly, N. Y. 200. 

« Willard v. lleiuliartlt, 2 E. D. Smith, 148. 



First B. (rather dazed). — "I don't understand 



Second B. (in tones of surprise at the other's 
want of comprehension). — "Don't you know that 
many Englislinien spit if tliey meet a white horse, 
or a squintini^inan,oraniagpie, or if, inadvertently, 
they step under a ladder, or wash their hands in 
the same basin as a friend? In Lancashire, boys 
Bpit over tlieir lingers before beginning to fight, and 
travelers do the same on a stone when leaving 
home, and then throw it away, and market i:>eoide 
do it on tlie first money they receive." 

First B. (interrogatively). — "But, if these dirty 
people do indulge in this vmseemly habit, Avhat 

Second B. — " Why, they consider it a charm that 
will bring good luck, or avert evil. Swedish peas- 
ants expectorate thrico if they cross water after 
dark. Tiie old Athenians used to spit if they 
passed a madman. The savage New Zealand priest 
wets two sticks with his saliva when he strives to 
divine the result of a coming battle." 

First B. — '• But the why and the wherefore of all 
this expectoration ? " 

Second B. — " l^ecause the mouth was once con- 
sidered the only portal by which evil spirits could 
enter into a man, and by which alone they could bo 
forced to make their exit; and the idea was to 
drive the fiends out with the saliva. The Mussul- 
mans made spitting and nose-blowing a i>art of 
their religious ceremonies, for they hoped thereby 
to free themselves from the demons which they be- 





lieved filled the air ; and a, Kamtscliatkan priest, 
after ho has spruiklcd with holy water the habo 
brought to the baptismal font, spits solemnly to 
north and south, to east and west." 

A wild shriek of the locomotive, announcinor that 
wo were drawing near our destination, and tho 
necessary pre])arations consequent upon such ar- 
rival, prevented us listening further to this conver- 
sation. I remarked to my wife that if I had never 
known of evil spirits being laid by the efflux of 
saliva, I had at least heard of their being raised 
thereby, and instanced Shylock and Signor Antonio. 

Wc drove up to the "Occidental House" in tho 
bus beloncjinu to that famous establishment. Tho 
satchel of a fellow-traveler was Iosl off tho top of 
the carriage. I endeavored to console him with 
tho information that years ago, where the keeper 
of a i)ublic house gave notice that he would furnish 
a free conveyance to and from the cars to all pas- 
sengers, Avith their baggage, and for that purpose 
employed the owner of certain carriages to tako 
passengers and their baggage, free of charge, to his 
house, and a traveler, who knew of this arrange- 
ment, drove in one of these cabs to the hotel, and 
on the way there had his trunk lost or stolen 
throuGfh the want of skill or care of the driver, tho 
inakeeper Avas held liable to make good tho loss. 
T' • oi\ri that decided tho point held that it was 
v.ivac'' oriai whether he was responsible as a common 
Carrie - o'* as an innkeeper, as in either case tho 
consideration for the undertaking was the profit to 
be derived from the entertainment of the traveler 




as a guest, and tliat an implied promise to take care 
of the baggage was founded on such consideration.! 

My fellow-traveler seemed not a little pleased 
with my information, and expressed his intention 
of seeking an early interview with the landlord of 
the ^'Occidental " on the subject of the lost satchel. 

While in the bus, a man who appeared to bo an 
agent for a rival house made some very dispar- 
aging remarks with regard to the " Occidental," with 
more vehemence than elecrance or truthfulness, cvi- 
dently with the design of inducing some intending 
guests to change their minds and go elsewhere. It 
was well for him that none of the " Occidental '* peo- 
ple heard him, for if they had he might speedily have 
become the defendant in an action at law, for mis- 
statements like his are actionable.2 

What a contrast between the palatial mansion 
at which we now alighted, and the hovel which the 
previous night had covered our heads — (protection 
it had not affordel). The small and dirty en- 
trance of the one was exchanged for a si)acious and 
lofty hall in the other, paved with marble and fitted 
up with comfortable sofas and cushions, on wdiicli 
was lounging and smoking, talking and reading, a 
multifarious lot of humanity; the parlor, with its 
yellow paint and rag carpet, was replaced by large, 
well liujlited and eleccantlv furnished drawincr-rooms, 
with carpets so soft that a footstep was no more 
heard than a passing shadow, and gorgeous mirrorg 
reflecting the smiles, faces and elaborately artistio 

1 Dickinson v. "Winchester, 4 Cusli. 114. 

2 Bacon's Aljr. Inns, B. 

uaMa *pgT« 



I 1 1 


I i 

! I 

toilets of city belles, find tlic trim figures and prim 
moustaches of youthful swells; .'i pretty little room, 
yclept an elevator, neatly carpeted, well lighted, 
free from noxious scents, with comfortable scats 
and liandsome reflectors, led up on high, instead o£ 
the groaning, creaking stairs of the country inn. 
The bedrooms, with their spotless linen, luxurious 
beds, dainty carpets, and cosy chairs, rested and 
refreshed one's weary bones by their very appear- 
ance. The noble dininGchall, with its delicately 
tinted walls, its pillars and gilded roof, with neatly 
dressed waiters, and ihc master of ceremonies pn- 
iroUing the room seeing to the comfort of the guests, 
tho arrangements of their places, and that each 
servant did his duty, gave a zest to one's appetito 
which the tempting viands increased a hundred fold, 
and the soups, fish, releves, entrees, game, relishes, 
vegetables, pastry, and dessert of tho 77ienu differed 
from tho bill of fare of tho previous day as docs 
light from darkness, sweet from bitter. 

As we were ascending in tlie luxuriously furnished, 
brilliantly lighted and gently moving elevator, a nin- 
nyharamcr tried to get on after the conductor had 
started. In doing so he well nigh severed tho con- 
nection between his ill-stored head and well-fed 
body. I told him that his conduct was most fool- 
hardy, for if ho had been injured ho could havQ 
recovered nothing from tho hotel proprietor, for 
tho accident would have been directly traceable to 
Lis own stupid want of ordinary care and i^rudenco.^ 

I I 

1 Robinson v. Cove, 22 Vt. 213; Butterfield v. Forrester, 11 
East, CO; Ratlibun v. Payn*?, 19 Wend. 301). 



At llio (liiiiKT t:il)lo wo found that many of the 
people, nL'twithslundiiiL^ tlio luxiii'ious surround- 
ings!, sc'imuinI quite oblivious of tlie sau:e advice given 
by Mistress Ilauuah Woolley, of London, in the year 
of grace 1(J7o. That wortliy tsay.s in lier "Gentle- 
woman's Companion " : " Do not eat spoon-meat so 
hot that tears stand in your eyes, or that thereby you 
betray your intolerable greediness. Do not bito 
your bread, but cut or l)reak it; and keep not your 
knife always in your liand, for that is as unscendy 
as a gentlewoman v» ho jn'etended to have as littlo 
a stomach as she liad mouth, and therefore would 
not swallow her jjcas by spoonfuls, but took them 
one by one and cut them in two before she would 
eat them. Fill not your mouth so full that your 
cheeks shall swell like a pair of Scotch bag-pipes." 
One of the com])any near by ate as if he had 
never eaten in any place save a shanly all the days 
of his life; he was not quite so bad, however, as the 
celebrated Dr. Johnson, who, Lord Macaulay tells 
us, "toro his dinner like a famished wolf, with the 
veins swelling in his forehead, and the perspiration 
running down liis cheeks;" but yet, in dispatching 
his food, ho swallowed two-thirds of his knife at 
every mouthful with the coolness of a juggler. 

"Such a savage as that ought not to be permitted 
to take his meals in the dining-room,"' said my wife. 
"I am not sure that ho could be prevented on ac- 
count of his style of eating," I replied, as the man 
began shoveling peas with a knife int<j his mouth, 
which could not have been broader imless Dame 
Nature had placed his auricular ai)peudagos an inch 




or two furtliei" back. (By llio way, liow did they 
cat i)t'a9 before tiic days of knives, forks, and 

"Do you moan to say tbat if an individual makes 
himself so extremely disaujrceable to all other t^uests, 
tlio ])ro}(rietor has no right to ask liiui to leave?" 
queried Mrs. L. 

" Well, my dear, it was held in Pennsylvania that 
the host might request such an one to depart ; an«l 
that if ho did not, the h()tel-kee|)er mii»"ht lav his 
liands gently npon him and lead him out, and if re- 
sistance was made might use sufficient force to ac* 
comi)lish the desired cnd."^ 

• "Then please tell that waiter to take that m:m 
out," broke in my wife. 

" Not so fast, my dear ; that decision was reversed 
afterward, and it was said to be assault and battery 
so to eject a guest.2 I have known 6000 damages 
given to a guest for an assault on him by his lancb 
lord.^ I remember, too, a case where a man rejoicing 
in the trisyllabic name of Prendergast was coming 
from Madras to London round the Cai)c of Storms, 
having i)aid his fare as a cabin passenger. Ilis habit 
was to reach across others at table to helj) himself, 
and to take potatoes and broiled bones in his lingers, 
dovonringthem as was the fashion in the days when 
Adam delved and Eve span, if they had such things 
then. The captain, offended at this ungentlemanly 
conduct, refused to treat Master P. as a first-clast^ 

1 Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 2 Pars. Scl. Caa. 431. 
'^ Comruonwealth v. Mitchell, 1 Pliila. GJ. 
SKelsey v. Heury, 49 IlL 4S8. ' 



passenger, excliuled liim from tlio oubln, and would 
not allow liini to walk on the weather tside of the 
ship. On reaehing England, Prendergast Hued the 
eaptain for the breaeli of Ids agreenuMit to carry 
lilni as a cuddy passengi'r ; the; oflicer pleaded that 
the conduct of the man had heen vulgar, ollVnsIve, 
indecorous and unbecoming, ])ut the fou of Nep- 
tune was midcted in dam.tges to the tune of £'Jj, 
Chief Justice Tindal observing that it would be 
dilllcult to say what degree of want of i)oli^h would, 
in jxunt of law, warrant a ca]>tain in excluding one 
frt)m the cmbly. Conduct unbecoming a gentleman 
in the strict sense of the word mi<:ht possibly justify 
him, but in this case there was no imputation of the 
Avant of gentlemanly principles. ^ But here, at hist, 
comes onr dinner; let us phow our neighbors liow 
to liandle knife and fork aright." 

And a very goo'l dinner it was, too, although 
dished by a cook who had not the cidents of the 
ancient kniiihts of the kitchen who could dexter« 
ously serve up a sucking-pig boiled on one side and 
roasted on the other, or make so true a fish out of 
turnips as to deceive sight, taste, and smell. These 
antique masters of the gastronomic art knew how 
to suit each dish to the nee<l an<l necessity of each 
guest. They held to the doctrine that the nu)re the 
nourishment of the body is subtilized and alembi, 
cated, the more ^viU the rpialities of the nnnd be 
rarefied and quintessenced, too. For a young man 
destined to live in the atmos})here of a royal court, 
whipped cream and calves' trotters were sui)plied 

1 Prenderfiast v. Compton, 8 Car. & P. 45i. 

cixr iiousn and ikiAXxniw. 

by tliorn; for .'i sprl^ of fiisliion, linnets' licads, 
c'sscnco of 3Iay beetles, bntterlly broth, and other 
light trifles; for a lawyer <lestine<l to the chicanery 
of his ])rofession and for the gloi-ies of the bar, 
Bunces of mustard and viiieLTar and other condi- 
inents of a bitter and pnngH'iit nature would bo 
carefully provided.^ As Lord Cluloseton says, "Tho 
ancients seem to ha\e been more mejital, luoro 
imaginative, than wo in their diNhes ; they ft.'d their 
bodies, as well as their nunds, upon delusion: for 
instance, they esteemed beyond all price the tongues 
of nightingales, because they tasted the very musio 
of tho birds in the organ of their utterance. That 
is the poetry of gastronomy." 

I noticed at a table rear by a merry party. I 
afterward learned tliat it was composed ol a num- 
ber of fast young men from the city, w ho had coiuo 
in to have a good dinner, and exhibit themselves, 
their garments, and their graces before the assem- 
bled guests; and that, when the hour of reckoning 
came, the needful wherewith to liquidate the little 
bill was not forthcoming. T!ie landlord insisted 
that each one was liable for the whole, as there was 
no special agreement, (and this would generally bo 
the ease 2) and that one who was solvent should pay 
tlic reckoning for all; but, unfortunately for Boni- 
face, his clerk had been told beforehand that that 
moneyed man was the guest of the others, Avho 
were all as poor as Job's i)eahens; so that tho poor 
man liad no recourse against the deadheads, in this 

iDons do Comus, Paris, 1758. 

2 roster V. Taylor, 3 Cumi3. X. P. 40. 


direction, at all events,! and even the moneyed pjent 
got a, free dinner. The worthies s\vai;ij;ered out, 
Binu^ini^ in an undertone tlic words of an I'^tliiopiau 
minstrel aj^propriate to the oceasion. 

« * « * # 

As my wife was returnlni^ to lier room after dln- 
tier, she met a poor woman, wii()S(3 daily walk in life 
was from the wash-tuh to the elolhes-line, h)okin<jj 
in vain for some miserahle sinner who had departed 
leavini^ his laundry Ijill un[)aid. After etideavoring 
in vain to eonsole the woman, ]M)-s. Lawyer, (who 
had a Quixotic way of interfering^ in (»ther people's 
troubles) came runniiiuj back to mo to ask if the 
hotel-keeper was not bound t*) ])ay for the washing. 
I told her of course not, iiidess he ha<l been in the 
habit of ])aying the laundry bills of guests ndio had 
left; then an undertaking to that effect might bo 
inferred, and it mii^ht bo considered as evidence of 
an antecedent ])romise.- With this small crumb of 
comfort, my wife returned to the user of soap and 
destrover of buttons. 

While sitting, a la 31r. I>ri<j:gs, in the smoking- 
room, "with my waistcoat unbuttoned, to give that 
just and rational liberty to the subordinate ])arts of 
the human commonwealth which tlie increase of 
their consequence after the hour of dinner naturally 
demands," and genlly,(as good Bishop ll.dl puts it) 
"whitling myself away in nicotian incense to the 
idol of my intem[)erance," a fellow-[)uffer spoke to 
me about the excessive charges of the house. 

^ Foster v. Taylor, 3 Camp. N. P. 49. 
'-^ CoUard f . White, 1 Starkie. 171. 



I I 
i ] 


I toM liim tlint in the good old days of yore, aiul 
perchance even yet, an innkeeper who charged ex- 
orbitant prices iniglit bo indicted, and that our 
ancestors were wont to have the rates fixed by pub- 
lic proclamation.'^ 

He then remarked that he wouM not mind about 
the prices, if the landlord had allowed him to do u 
little business in the place. 

"Yourriij-ht to lodc^e and be fed in the house 
gives you no right to carry on trade hero,"''^ I re- 

''■ One of the waiters threatened to kick mo yes* 
terday for doing business." 

" Oh, if )ou are assaulted by any of the servants, 
the proprietor is liable to you in damages, though 
ho was not liimself ])resent at the time, or even 
consenting thereto," ^ I returned. Then, fearing 
lest I might be nourishing a vij)er in the sliape of 
a book-agent, or ven(h)r of patent articles, I left tlio 
room, the words of the poet running through my 
brain : 

" Society is now ono i>olishc(l horde?, 
Formed of two mi^jhty tribes — the Bores and Borei'." 

1 Bacon's Abr. Inns, C. 

2 Ambler?'. Skinner, 7 Hob. (X. Y.)5G1. 

3 Wado V. Thayer, 40 Cal. 578. 

Chapter III. 


Next morning, as we were arranging wliither wc 
would wend our way, I proposed taking a bus. My 
wife remarked positively that A\e wished that I 
would not use that vulgar word. I returned: 

" Humph ! Did you ever liear the story about 
Lord Campbell and the omnibus?" 

" What was it?" she asked. 

"A lawyer while arguing before hiui continually 
spoke of a (certain kind of carriage as ' a brougham,' 
(pronouncing both syllables) whereupon his lordship, 
with that pomposity for which he was rather noted, 
remai-ked that 'broom' was the more usual, and not 
incorrect, pronunciation; that such pronunciation 
was open to no grave objection, and had the great 
advantage of saving the time consumed by uttering 
an extra syllable. Shortly afterward Campbell 
si)oke of an 'omnibus.' The counsel whom he had 
shortly before corrected, jumi)ed up with such 
promptitude that the judge was startled into silence, 
exclaiming: 'Par<lon me, my Lord, the carriage 
to which you draw attention is usually called ' a 
bus' : that pronunciation is open to no grave objec- 
tion, and has the great advantage of saving the time 
consumed by uttering two extra syllables.' You 
can easily draw the moral from that little tale, my 
dear " 




Into a bus wo got, rrnrl out of it we got, in course 
of time. Wo went up nnd down and in and out 
and r()und;il)out, seeing the sights and doing the 
town like many another couple liad done ^' •'^ore us, 
and will do aurain durin<]C that most a ward of 
seasons, tlie lioneymoon. 

While my spouse gazed in at some lovely silks, 
Bweet feathers, and ducks of bonnets, unmindful of 
the troubles that Moses underwent in obtaininix the 
latter part of the Decalogue, I took the opportunity 
of instillin'4 some leural doctrines and decisions into 
licr head. 

" Remember," I said, " the solemn words of the 


' Man wants but littln licro below, 

Is or wants that littlo long.' " 

"I fear that a woman like myself will have to 
wait very long before sIh; gets her little wants sup- 
plied," she saucily interjected. 

"I was about to remark," I sternly continued, 
"that if you are very extravagant in your wardrobe 
and tastes, I will not bo liable to pay all your littlo 
bills. Once upon a time an English judge decided 
that a milliner could not make a hui^'band pay 
£5,287 for bonnets, laces, feathers and ribbons sup- 
plied to his dear little wife during a few months."^ 

"No power on earth could make you j)ay that 
sum, or iinything like it; so don't worry yourself, 
my darling," coolly and somewhat sarcastically re- 
marked Mrs. Lawyer. 

" Please do not interrupt. In another case it was 

1 Lano V. Ironmonger, 13 ]SIees. & W. OGS. 


held that tlio price of a sca-sklc suit, sonic £C7, 
coiikl not be collcctec] from a liusband— a poor bar^ 
rister — who liacl forbidden Ids wife to go to the 
watering place." i 

" He must liave been a very poor lawyer if lio 
never had a suit that cost more to some unfortunate 

"Again, tlie Rev. Mr. Butclier" 

" I like that name for a parson," again interposed 
my wife. " It suggests, you know, a slender frame, 
a ])alo face, taper fingers." 

I paid no heed, but went on : 

"Was excused payment of some £900 for 

birds— loreees, avadavats, lovebirds, quakers, cut- 
throats — furnislied his wife during the short space 
of ten months." 2 

" But I will not bo as extravagant as any of those 
misguided ladies were," remarked my wife, most 

" Well, then, there Avill be no trouble. Every- 
thing necessary I will of course pay for willingly, 
as I could be made to pay for them, if unwilling. 
Even a piano, perhaps, I will stand; 3 <jr false 
teeth ;'i but, mind you, not quack medicines,^ 
though you are a duck." 

"I am glad to liear 'that you'll vouchsafe me 
raiment, bed, and food ' ; please begin now with 
the last named necessary article, for I am hungry." 
Mrs. Lawyer was a practical woman. 

1 Atkins V. Garwood, 7 Car. & R 750, 
" Frt'ostono r. lUitchor, <) Car. & P. (;43. 
8 Farko r. Kleober, o7 ]'a. St. 251. 
4 Gilinan v. Andriis, 2S Vt. L*41. 
C Wood c. lielly, 8 Cush. 400. 



< f f 


"I presume it is time for lunch," I replied. "Ah 
me! I wish lawyers in this nineteentli century 
could get their dinners as cheaply as they could in 
days gone by, when the client paid therefor, as 
appears in many an ancient register. Tlie clerk of 
St. Margaret's, Westminster, entered on his books 
that he ])aid to Robert Fylpott, learned in the law, 
for his counsel given, 3s. 8d., with Cd. for his dinner. 
Tonpora onutantur. There's a restaurant. Let 
us enter." 

We entered accordingly, and a very good lunch- 
eon WG had, except for one slight contretemps. 
While engaged upon my macaroni soup, a long, 
reddish thread — as I surmised — revealed itself to 
mv vision. Callinix the waiter, I demanded how 
it came there. 

" All ! " said the man, quite cheerfully, " I can 
tell vou where that c;une from. Our cook's in love, 
sir, and is constantly opening a locket containing a 
lock of his sweetheart's hair. Of course, some of it 
occasionally falls into the dishes." 

"Disgusting! " said my wife. 

"Beastly!" said I. 

The waiter calmly continued : " Beg pardon, sir, 
but would you mind giving me the hair? You see, 
the cook is so fond of her that he is quite i)leased 
when I bring him back a stray hair or two." 

Of course, I knew that accidents will, etc. ; and 
everything else was very good. My wife, however, 
wasted a good deal of time in listening in wonder- 
ing amazement to the calculations made at an ad- 
joining table. 



" I don't see how a waiter can remember such a 
long list of things, and tell what they all come to 
BO rapidly ; or how any two men could eat as much 
as thosj two did," she remarl<ed to me. 

"Pshaw!" I replied, "that is nothing to Mr. 
Smalhvced's arithmetical i)owers, or to the gastro- 
nomic achievements of himself and his friends." 

"And ])ray what did Mr. S. do?" asked my wife. 

" Why, when their little luncheon was over, and 
he was asked hy the pretty waitress what they had 
had, he replied, without a moment's hesitation : 
'Four veals and hams is 3 and 4 potatoes is 3 and 
4 and one summer cabbage is 3 and G and 3 mar- 
rows is 4 and G and G breads is 5 and 3 Cheshire3 
is 5 and 3 and 4 pints of half-and-half is G and 3 
and 4 small rums is 8 and 3 and 3 Pollys is 8 and 
G and 8 and G in half a sovereign, Polly, and 
18 pence out.' " 

When we rose to leave the room, we found that 
some one had left before us with Mrs. Lawyer's new 
nmbrella. Silently I quitted the place, for I knew 
that it had been decided that a re!^.i.aui;mt is not an 
inn, so as to charge the proprietor with the liabili- 
ties of an innkeeper toward transient i)ersons who 
take their meals there ; (and the same rule ap|)licg 
even thouii'h he does in fact keei* in the same build- 
ing an hotel, to which the eating-house is attached ; ^) 
and therefore it would be useless to expect the pro- 
])rietor to make good the loss. Nor is a refresh- 
ment bar (where persons casually passing by receive 
the good things of this life at a counter) an inn, 

1 Cariienter v. Taylor, 1 Uilt. (X. Y.) 193. 


II ii 

although it is connected witli an hotel, and kept 
Under the same license, but entered by a separate 
door from tlie street.^ AVhere, however, a servant 
once asked permission to leave a parcel at a tavern, 
and the hlndl'•<l^' refused to receive it; the man, 
being a tl.irjsty ooul, called for something to drink, 
j)Utting the parcel on the floor behind him while 
imbibing, and while thus the spirit was descending 
more rapidly tliar it ever did in tlie most sensitive 
thermometer, im |..;ckage disappeared, and never 
was seen again j^ ue owner; yet the innkeeper 
was held ■'•('spovsiblo fo." -'"loss.^ 

An umbi-'jlla .vas ^>o'i.,. ' and money expended 
for divers little odds anrl cm.o ;; jfore we went back 
lo the hotel for dinner. On our return, Mr. Dead^ 
head and his wufe entered the hotel just before us. 
They were country cousins of tlie proprietor's, and 
had been asked to dinner, or had come without an 
invitation. As he was ()])ening an inside door a 
large pane of glass fell out of it, and, slightly graz- 
ing his hand, shivered into a thousand pieces on the 
marble lloor. I told him to rejoice that he had been 
fortunate enough to escape with the loss of but a 
drop or two of his vital lluid; for I remembered 
distinctly a similar accident happening to my fath- 
er's old friend, Southcote, in England, years ago ; 
and although he sued the proprietor of the house, 
alleging that he (the landlord) was possessed of an 
hotel, into which he had invited S. as a visitor, and 

1 Rogina v. I^ymcr, L. U. 2 Q. D. D. 130. 

2 Deuuctt V. MuUor, 5 T. 11. 27(3. See, also, Ilouscr v. TuUy, 
62 Pa. bt. 92. 



in "which there was a, c:hiss (h)or which it was 
necessary for lilin (S.) to open for tho ])urposo of 
leaving, ami whicli lie, hy tho permission of the 
owner, and with liis knowledge, and Avithont any 
warning from him, lawfnlly o])ene(l, for thei)nrnoso 
aforesaid, as n door which was in ii proper condi- 
tion to he opened, yet, hy and througli tlio careless* 
ness, negligence, and defanlt of defenih'nit, the door 
was then in an insecure and dangerous condition, 
and unlit to he opened ; and, hy reason of said door 
beiuLC in such insecure and danf^erous condition, and 
of the then carelessness, negligence, default, and 
improper conduct of tho defendant in that behalf, a 
largo piece of glass fell from the door, and wounded 
Southcote — yet, although he said all this, tho Court 
of Exchequer, with Pollock, C. B , at its head, de- 
cided that no cause of action against tho proprietor 
was disclosed.^ It was considered that a visitor in 
a house was in the same position as any other mem- 
ber of the establishment, so far as regards tho negli- 
gence of tho master or his servants, and nnist take 
liis chance of accidents with tho rest.^ Baron 
i^ramwell, liowever, well said that where a person 
is in tho house of another, either on business or for 
any other lawful purpose, ho has a right to expect 
that the owner will take reasonable care to protect 
lam from injury, and will not leave trap-doors 
open down which ho might fall, or tako him into a 
garden among si)riiig-guns and man-traps.*^ 

At dinner — to which, in addition to the various 

iSoutlicotG V. Stanley, 1 Iliirl. & N. 2i7. 

3 Ibid. 

Tcr rollock, B. C. 






condiments provided by mine host, we ourselvc3 
broiiglitthat best of sauces, bun2;er — there was seat- 
ed at a neicrliboriu'j' table JNIrs. Deadhead, a friend 
of tlie ])roitrietorV, as I liavc said, a lady of con- 
siderable amplitude of j>erson, and extensively be- 
decked Avith the diamonds of Golconda, the gold 
of Australia, the hxce of Lyons, the feiithers of 
Soutli Africa, the millinery of New York, and 
attired in a silk dress of most fashionable shape, 
color, and inake. As a waiter was helping this very 
conspicuous member of society to a plate of soup, 
he caught his foot in the extensive train, stumbled, 
and i)laced the soup in her ladyshi[)'s lap — minus 
tlio i»late. Great was the commotion, loud the re- 
proaches, abject the a])ologies. 

My wife thereupon whispered to me that the 
upset would not have mattered mucli if the soup 
was any like hers. 

" AVhy not?" I queried, in some surprise, and 
anxious to learn as speedily as possible the chemi- 
cal peculiarities of a lady's toilet. 

"Because then the dress would have been turned 
into a watered silk," was the only answer I got. 

It was some time before I saw the point, and 
then I smiled a dreary, weary smile, and remarked 
that I hoped the lady was able to re-dress herself, 
for I thought that she could get no redress from 
the ])roprietor — at least, that legal luminary, Pol- 
lock, C. B., so insinuated on one occasion.^ 

My wife grew fidgety because the waiters were 
Bomcwhat tardy in filling her orders. 

1 Soutlicote V. Stanley, supra. 



" Look,' i^lic said, *' at those lazv fellows ! Half i\ 
dozen of them doing nothing, while we are kei>t 
waitini;]:, still waitin'j:." 

"DoiiI)tlcss," I replied, "they liavo been deeply 
impressed with the truth of that grand old Miltonio 
line : 

* Tbey also servo who only stand to wait.' " 

Wliile taking my post-prandial smoke, my inter- 
rogator of the previous evening again a])proaehed 
mc, and asked, in a grumbling voiee, if the landlord 
had a right to turn him out of one room, and put 
him into another. 

" Oh, yes," I replied ; " he has the sole right of se- 
lecting the apartment for each guest, and, if he finds 
it expedient, may change the room and assign liis 
patron another. There is no imi»lied contract that 
one to whom a iiarticular room has been i^iven shall 
retain it so long as he chooses to i)ay for it.^ You 
pay your money, but you don't take your choice." 

" But I liked the room so much," said Mr. Com- 
plaining Grumbler. 

"It matters not. The proprietor is not bound to 
comply with your caprices.2 When you go to an 
hotel you have only a mere casement of sleeping in 
one room, and eating and. drinking in another, as 
Judge Manic once remarked." 3 

"Can he turn mo out of the house altogether?" 

"Certainly not, if you behave yourself; unless, 

1 Doyle V. Walker, 2G Q. B. (Ont.) 502. 

2 i^ell V. Kuislit, 8 :Mees. & W. 27(]. 
SLano v. Dixon, o M. G. & S. 784. 



indeed, you neglect or refuse to pay your bill upon 
reasonable deuiand." ^ 

"I am going away by the night train," said Mr. 
CO., "and 1 did not wish to go to bed; so he 
insisted upon liking my room, and told me I might 
stay in the ])arlor until I left." 

"And quite right, too. Although he cannot mako 
you go to bed, or turn you out of doors because you 
do not choose to sleej), still you cannot insist ni)on 
liaving a bed-room in which to sit up all night, if 
you are furnished with another room pro2)er for 
that purpose." - 

" I intend returning in the afternoon ; can lio 
refuse to take care of my traps while I am ab- 

" I fancy not, for a temporary absence does not 
affect the rights of a guest.*^ Long since, it was 
laid down .as law that if one comes to an inn with 
a hamper, in which he has goods, and goes away, 
leaving it witli the Iiost, and in a few days comes 
back, but in the meantime his goods are stolen, ho 
has no action against the liost, for at the time of 
stealing he was not liis guest, and by keeping tlio 
li:nuper the innkeeper had no benefit, and therefore 
is not charijeable with the loss of it. But it would 
be otherwise if the man is absent but from morn to 
dewy eve;* and where, in New York State, a 
guest, after spending a few days at an liotel, gave 
Up his room, left his valise — taking a check for it— • 

iDoylo V. AValkcr, supra. 

2 Fell i\ Knight, 8 Mecs. & W. 27G. 

8 McDonald r. Edgerton, 5 Barb. (N". Y.) 5G0. 

4 Bacon's Abr. Inns, Cj Gelley v. Clark, Cro. J. 188. 





I re 


an<l was ffonc ciglit days, williout payinG^ his bill; 
oil retuniini,', ho roi^istcMvd his n;iino, took a room, 
and called for his baix, when another appeared in 
its ]>lace, h:ivin;j^ the duplicate check attached : the 
Court of Common Pleas lield that, wlietlier tlie case 
was considered as an ordinary bailment, or as ])rop- 
erty in an innkeepers' hands, on which he had a 
lien, he was bound to exercise duo care and dili- 
gence, and that lie must account for the loss, the 
chanD^ini^ of the check being evidence of negli- 
gence." 1 

I rose to leave the room, for I was growing 
weary of this catechetical performance ; but my 
questioner's budget was not yet exhausted, and, as 
I made mv exit, I heard him sav : 

*' Pardon me — one inquiry more : I was at the St. 
Nicholas last w^eek when it was burnt down, an<l I 
lost some of my clothes. Is the owner liable to 
make Lfood the damaijo sustained?"^ 

I heeded not, and went to seek my wife. After 
some search through the mac^niiicent (Irawini;- 
rooms of our sumptuous hotel, I at length found 
her in an elegant parlor, seated at a piano, and gen- 
tly playing some sweet melodies. As I a])proached, 
she motioned me to bo cautious. When I reached 
her, I saw that a large spider was stationed at the 
edge of the j)iano cover, api)arently drinking in 
the harmony of sweet sounds to the utmost extent 
of his arachnidian nature. My advent broke the 
spell, and away the little hairy darkey rushed, 

1 Murray r. Clarke, 2 Daly, (N. Y.) 102. 

2 Tor answer, see page loy. 



hand over hand, up liis tiny cable of four thousand 
twisted strands, till he was safe in the cornice of 
the ceiling. My wife was charmed at her novel 
listener, and exclaimed: "Did you ever see such a 

" No, but I have read of it," I re])lied. " jMichelet, 
in his charming book on ' The Insect,' tells that 
a little musical prodigy, who at eight astounded 
and stupefied his hearers by his mastery of the vio- 
lin, was forced to practice long weary hours in soli- 
tude. There was a, spider, however, in the rooin, 
which, entranced by the melodious strains, grew 
more and more familiar, until at length it would 
climb upon the mobile arm that held the bow. Lit- 
tle Berthome needed no other listener to kindle his 
enthusiasjn. But a cruel step-mother appeared on 
the scene suddenly one day, and with a single blow 
of her slipper annihilated the octopedal audience. 
The child fell to the ground in Ji deathlike faint, 
and in three months was a corpse — dead from a 
broken heart." 

"How sad!" said Mrs. Lawyer, in husky tones, 
as she blew her nose in n suspicious manner. 

" Then there was also the musical spider of Pelli- 
— A little snarlevow of ji doij here rushed 



in and barked so vigorously and furiously that my 
wife never heard more of that spider. I tried to 
turn the wretched creature out, but a puppy fol- 
lowing — the owner — requested me to leave it alone. 
I must say that I heartily concur with Mr. Justice 
Manisty (and I sincerely trust that my concurrence 
will afford encouragement to the learned gentleman 




ill liis arduous oHioc) iu lioMiiiuj tluit a guest cannot, 
uiKk'r any circuinNt inccs, insist U])on brint^ini^ a dog 
into any room in a liotcl wiicro other guests are. 
On tlie same oecasion on which Judg*; iNIanisty cx- 
j)resse(l liis views, Kelly, C !>., remarked that lie 
would not lay down the rule }»osirively that under 
no eireumstaiiees would a guest have a right to 
bring a dog into an inn; there might ])ossil)ly, lio 
observed, b • circumstances in which, if a person 
came to an inn with a (h>g, and tho iimkeeper re- 
fused to |)ut up the animal in any stable or out- 
building, and there was nothiieji: that could make 
llie canine a cause of alarm or an annoyance to oth- 
ers, its owner miij-ht l)e iustified in briuij-ing it into 
the house. His lordship, however, considered that 
a landlord liad a right to efusj to ])rovide for tho 
wants of a visitor who insiste(l upon coming with 
two very large St. I]ernar<l mastiffs, one a lierco 
creatun^, that had to be muzzled, the other a <log 
of a rentier nature, l)at somewhat given to vhat 
bad habit referred to in those l*roverbs of Solomon 
which the men of llezekiah, king of Judali, copied 
out, and by the apostle St. Peter in his second 

^ « * « « 

The next day there was a gentle ripple of excite- 
ment pervading the house. Two cases of hirceny 
came to light, and made the guests communicative 
and talkative. 

In one case a Mr. Blank, his wife, and amiable 
and accomplished daughter, (I can vouch for the 

1 Ri gina v. Rymer, L. R. 2 Q. D. D. 141. 




! I 



correctness of these adjectives ; for I liad a very 
pleasant chat — to call it by a mild name — with her 
one day, while JMrs. Lawyer was lying down after 
dinner) had a sitting-room and bedroom oi suite, 
so arranged that when the sittinuj-room door was 
open one could see the entrances into both bed- 
rooms. Mrs. B., being in her room, laid upon the 
bed her reticule, in which was a by no means des- 
picable sum of money. She then rejoined her spouse 
and daughter in the sitting-room, leaving the door 
between the two apartments open. Some five 
minutes after, she sent Miss Blank — who was not 
too i^roud to run a short errand for her kind mam- 
ma — for the l»ag; but lo! it was gone, and was 
never again found by a member of the Blank fam- 
ily ; for 

"In A-ain tlioy searched each cranny of the liouse, 
Each gapinjT chiuk impervious to a mouse." 

The other robbery was of the goods of a young 
Englishman, who, the previous evening, had been 
boastfully exhibiting some sovereigns in the smok- 
ing-room. AVhen he went to bed he had placed 
h.s watch and money on a table in his room, left 
his door open, and, on morning dawning, was sur- 
j^rised to lind his time-piece and cash vanished with 
the early dew. Other people would liavc been 
surprised if they had remained. 

I fell into conversation on the subject of tlioso 
depredations with a gentleman whom I afterward 
discovered to be a member of Lincoln's Inn, a j^laco 
Avhicli bears very little resemblance to our American 



" 'Tis very strange," said Mr. Learned Intlielaw, 
"liow liistory roi)eat3 itself, even in insigniiicaiit 

I bowed, and remarked : "A very sensible man 
once observed that there was nothing new nnder 
the snn." 

"He did not live, liowever, in this our nineteenth 
century," was tlic reply. "But wliat I was going 
to say was tliat there are two cases reported in our 
Englisli hiw-books exactly simihir to the two occur- 
rences of to-day." 

"That is singular. AVliat were the decisions?" 

" In the reticule case,^ the hotel-keeper was lield 
responsible for the loss; in the otlier,- it was con- 
sidered that the guest liad been guilty of negligenco 
so as to absolve the host. You know tliat with us 
it was decided, about the time that Columbus was 
discovering America, that an innkeeper is liable 
for the goods of his guests if damaged or stolen 
while under his care as an innkee})er ;'^ and in such 
cases he is not freed from his grave responsibility 
by showing that neither himself nor liis servants 
are to blame, but in every event he is liable unlesg 
tlie loss or injury is caused by the act of God, or the 
queen's enemies, or the fault, direct or implied, of 
the guest ^ — and that even though the i)()or man hag 
not only not been neglii-ent, but lias even been dili- 
gent in his efforts to save the property of his guest." ^ 

1 Kent V. Shuckard, 2 Barn. & Adol. 803. 

2 Cashill V. ^yYi<rht, (J El. & 15. 89. 
8 Year Book, 10 Iloury VI I, 2i;. 

4 Morgan v. llavcy, G llurl. & X. 2G5. 
« IbiJ. 



• I 



"The rule is the same with us,"i I replied, "and 
it extends to all j^evsonal property the guest brings 
witli him, whatever mav be the value or the kind.2 
And if the proprietor liappens to be absent he is still 
liabh; for tlie conduct of those lie has left in charge.3 
Innkeepers, as well as common carriers, are re- 
garded as insurers of the ])roperty committed to 
tlieir care. The law rests on tlie same princii)les 
of policy here as in England and other countries, 
and is wise and reasonable." 4 

" But it seems very severe upon innkeepers," re- 
marked a by-stander. 

" Rigorous as the law may seem, my dear sir," 
replied my friend of Lincoln's Inn, " and hard as it 
may actually be in one or two particular instances, 
yet it is founded on the great principle of public 
utility to which all private considerations ought to 
yidld; for travelers, who must be numerous in a 
rich and commercial country, are obliged to rely 
almost implicitly on the good faitli of innkeepers, 
whose education and morals are often none of the 
best, and who might liave frequent op})ortunities 
for associating with ruffians and i)ilferers; while the 
injured guest could seldom or never obtain legal 
l)roof of such combinations, or even of their negli- 
gence, if no actual fraud had been committed by 

" WJiat did the old Roman law say on the sub- 

1 Sliaw V. Berry, 31 Me. 478; Sibley r. Aldrich, 33 X. II. 553. 

2 Kellogg y\ Swoenoy, 1 Lans. (X. Y.) 31)7. 
a Ilockwell v. Troctor, .'il) C,a. 10."). 

4 Wilde, J., ISIason v. Thompson, 9 Pick. 280. 

5 Joues on Bailments, i^p, \)o-[)kj. 



jcct?" inquire(i old Dr. Dryasdust, who considered 
that nothiiiix done or said on Iho liither side of the 
Middle A^XQS was wortliy of consideration. 

"They, sir, wero equally anxious to protect the 
puhlic against dishonest publicans, an<l by their 
edicts gave !in action against them if the goods of 
travelers were lost or hurt by any means except 
damno fataJi, or by inevitabl'*, accident; and even 
then Ulpian intimates that innkeepers were not al- 
together restrained from knavish practices or sus- 
picious neglect." i 

"Still," said the by-stander aforesaid, "I do not 
see how the reticule can be considered to have been 
under our hmdlord's care." 

"To render him liable it is not necessary that the 
goods be placed in liis special kee})ing, or brought 
to his special notice. If they bo in the inn, brought 
there in an ordinary and reasonable way by a guest, 
it is suliicient to charge the proprietor." - 

"Yes," I chimed in, "and it does not matter in 
what part of the liotel the goods arc kept, wlu^ther 
* ui)-stairs, or down-stairs, or in the lady's chaml)er': 
wliile they are anywhere within it, they are under 
the care of jjoniface, and he is responsible for their 
safe custody, lie is equally liable, whether bag- 
gage is put in a bedroom, a liorsc handed over to 
the care of the hostler,^ or goods jjlaced in an out- 

1 "SVliarton on Innkeepors, p. 8S. 

2Ciiyle's Case; rackard v. Northrraft, 2 yhii. (Ky.) 4^,0; 
Korcrosa r. Xorcross, 53 Me. Vh\\ lUirrows ?'. Trul»tr, 21 Md. 
o20; ^Ic'Donald i\ Edgertoii, 5 Barb. 5o0; Coykcudall v. Ea- 
tuu, rj5 liarb. 188. 

3 llalleubako v. Fish, 8 AVcnd. 547. 




i -J, 







house beloiiGcinu: to tlic establishment and used for 
that sort of articles.i My friend Epps, on one oc- 
casion, went to an inn down in Mississippi, and liad 
his trunk talvcn to Ins bedroom, and it beiuL^ broken 
into at night and the money purloined, the innkeeper 
was hekf liable." 2 

"A friend of mine," said the English gent, "who 
was in the cmjjloy of a sweet fellow of the name of 
Candy, on arriving at an inn gave his luggage to 
Boots, who placed one package in the hall ; after- 
wards the servant wished to carry it into the com- 
mercial room, but the owner requested him to leave 
it where it was; the parcel mysteriously disapj)ear- 
cd, and the innkeeper had the pleasure of p.'iying 
for it." 3 

"In fact, I believe an innkeeper cannot make his 
guest take care of his own goods ; '^ nor is a traveler 
bound to deposit his valuables in the hotel safe, 
even though he may know that there is one kei)t 
for the reception of such articles, and there is a 
regulation of the house requiring articles of value 
to be so deposited,"^ I remarked. 

"Are you not stating that rather broadly?" 
questioned my legal confrere. 

"No Vatican Council has proclaimed me infalli- 
ble. I know full well that when the poet said ' to 
err is human,' he spoke trulh. Of course, I am 

1 Cliuto V. AYigf];ins. 14 Jolm3. 175. 

2 Epps v. Hinds, 27 Miss. (iu7; Simon v. Miller, 7 La. An. 3G8. 
8 Cumly V. Spencer, a Fost. & F. oO;;. 

4 Bennett v. Mellor, 5 Term. Hep. 273. 

6 Johnson V. llicliardson, 17 111. 002; Pijjer v. Ilall, 14 La. 
An. o2i; rrolUet v. Uall, Ibid. 524. 



speaking only of the rule in States in wliich there 
is no special law or statute on the point, limiting 
the liahility of publicans," I rej)liecl. 

"I think, however," said Mr. Inthelaw, the 
Englishman, *' that it has been hel.l that the inn- 
keeper may refuse to be responsible for tho safe 
custody of the guest's goods unless they are put in 
a certain place, and if the guest objects to this, the 
host will be exonerated in case of loss.^ And a 
guest who has actual notice of a regulation of the 
inn as to the deposit of valuables, and has not com- 
plied with it, takes tho risk of loss happening from 
any cause, except, of course, tho actual sins of 

omission and commission of the landlord or his 
servants." 2 

"And very reasonably," remarked a by-stander. 

"But clear and unmistakable notice of these reg- 
ulations restricting the publican's liability must cer- 
tainly be given,*' 3 I asserted. "And," I continued, 
"I believe a distinction has been taken, and it appears 
to rest upon good reason, between those effects of a 
traveler not immediately requisite to his comfort, 
and those essential to his personal convenieuce, and 
which it is necessary that he should have constantly 
about him; so that, though personally notified, he 
is not bound to deposit the latter with the innkeeper. 

1 Saunders v. Spencer, Dyer, 2C)(]a; Wilson v. Ilulpin, 00 
IIow. Pr. IJ-i; Packard v. Nurthcruft, 2 ^lot. (Ky.)'13J; TuUer 
V. Coats, 18 Ohio Si. .043. 

2 Stanton v. Lelaud, 4 E. D. Smith, 88; Kellogg v, Sweeney, 
1 l.ans. N. Y. 307. 

8 Van Wyck v. Howard, 12 IIow. Pr. U7. 





And, perhaps, this distinction will explain the ap- 
parently contradictory decisions."^ 

" Doubtless the notice must bo clear. Even a 
printed notification is not sufficient. It must be 
brought liome to the mind of the guest, or at least 
to liis knowledge, before ho enters and takes pos- 
session of his room, so that, if he does not like the 
regulations, he may go clsewherc.2 In one case, the 
register was headed with the notice, ' Money and 
valuables, it is agreed, shall bo placed in the safe 
in the office ; otherwise, the proprietor will not be 
liable for loss ' ; and Mr. Bernstein duly entered his 
name in the book ; still he was not held bound by 
the notice, as there was no proof that it was seen 
or assented to by him." 3 

By-stander here remarked : " My father kept an 
inn in New York State, and once told a man of tho 
name of Purvis, when ho arrived at the house, that 
there was a safe for valuables, and taat ho would 
not be responsible for his unless they were placed 
in it. Purvis, however, neglected the caution, and 
left 82,000 in gold in a trunk in his bed-room, locked 
the door, and gave the key to my father. Somo 
thief broke through and stole, and Purvis tried to 
make the old gentleman responsible for tlie theft ; 
but the court did not agree with him, and consid- 
ered that he alone must bear the loss." 4 

1 Profilet V. Hall. IG La. An. 524. 

2 Morgan v. Ravey, 30 L. J. Excli. 131, per Wilde, B. ; G 
Hurl. & N. 2G5. 

3 Bernstein v. Sweeny, 33 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 271. See, also, 
Kentv. Midland Rwy. L. R, 10 Q. B. 1; Henderson v. BtteV" 
enson, L. 11. 2 Scotch & D. 470. 

4 Purvis V. Colemau. 21 N. Y. 111. 





" Tho host is not Ihible for the loss of goods if, 
at the time of their disappearance, they wcro in 
the cxchisive i)osscssion of tlieir o\vner,i and it will 
generally 1)0 left to an intelligent jury to say 
whether or not the articles were in the sole custody 
of the guest," ^ remarked Mr. Inthclaw. 

" Wimt do you nieun ? " asked one. 

*' For instance, where a Brummagem man, trav- 
eling for orders, came to an inn Avith three boxes 
of goods ; the travelers' room did not meet Avith 
his approbation, so ho asked for another one up 
stairs, where ho might display his wares. The lady 
of the house gave him one with a key in the door, 
and told him to keep it locked. The boxes were 
taken to the new apartment, and after dining in 
the travelers' room, the Brummagem gent — who 
seemed inclined to put on airs — took his precious 
self into the new room, and there also ho took Ids 
wine. After his repast, he exhibited his wares— 
chiefly jewelry — to a customer, and in the cool of 
the evening went out to see the town, leaving the 
door unlocked, and the key outside. (So the reporter 
tells US, thouizh whv he need have taken the trouble 
to leave the door unlocked if the key was on tho 
outside, or the key outside if the door was unlocked, 
I cannot understand,) While he was away, two 
of his boxes went away, too. He sued tho proprie- 
tor of the house for dama'jjes, but ffot nothinir. He 
applied for a new trial, but with like success. Lord 

iFarnswortli v. Packwood, 1 Stark. 240; Packard r. North- 
craft, 2 Met. (Ky.) 43i); Vauoo v. Throckmorton, 5 Bush, 

2 Farnsworth v. Packwood, supra. 





Ellenborougli remarked that it seemed to him that 
the care of the goods in a, room used for the exhibi- 
tion of the goods to persons over wliom the inn- 
keeper couhl have no clieck or control liardly fell 
witliin the limits of his duty as an innkeeper; tliat 
the room was not merely intrusted to our friend in 
the ordinary character of a guest frequenting an 
imi, but that he must be understood as liaving 
special charge of it. And anotlier learned judge 
gave it as his sentiments tliut the traveler should bo 
taken to have received the favor of tlie i)rivato 
room cum oncre ; that is, he accepted it upon tlio 
condition of taking the goods under his own care." l 
"But," I said, "of course, simply ordering goods 
to be placed in a particular room is not such a tak- 
ing under one's own care as to absolve an innkeeper 
from his responsibility .2 I recollect a case wliere a 
traveler, on arriving, requested his impedimenta, as 
old Ca3sar used to say, to be taken to the commer- 
cial room ; they were, and they were stolen, and 
the innkeeper was held bound to recoup the man, 
although he proved that tlie usual practice of the 
hoiise was to [tlace the luggage in the ^^juest's room, 
and not in the commercial room, unless an express 
order Avas given to the contrary. The chief justice 
remarked that if mine host had intended not to bo 
responsible unless his guests chose to have their 
goods i)laced in their sleeping apartments, or such 
other place as to him might seem meet, he should 
have told them so." 3 

1 r>ur2jes3 V. Clements, 4 INIaiilo & S. r.07. 

2 Pacicarcl v. Nortlicruf t, 2 Met. ( Ky. ) 439. 
8 lUcbmoud t'. Smith, 3 Barn. & C. i). 



Bv-standor obsorvcd that llio law Rcemcd incon- 
sistciit, us tl)(;rc3 did not appear to bo iiiucli differ- 
eiico between llie two cases. 

*OIr. Justice Iloh'ovd distlncruishcd tlie latter 
from the former case by sayinij^ tliat the Dirming- 
ham man asked to have a room wliieli lie used for 
tlie pui'poscs of trade, not merely as a guest in tho 
inn.^ In Wisconsin, it was held that the retention 
by a guest of money or valuables upon his person 
was not such exclusive control as to exonerate an 
innkeei)er from liability, if the loss was not induced, 
by the nc^gligence or misconduct of the guest," ^ re- 
marked one who knew whereof he allirmed. 

"An hotel-keeper is of course liable for the con- 
duct of another guest, jdaced in a room already oc- 
cupied, without the consent of tho occupilIltx3 And 
where a guest left his <loor unloclced, because ho 
was tol I that he must either do so or get np in the 
night and open it, as others had to share the room 
with him, the innkeeper was held liable for every- 
thing lost."'^ 

Tliis very learned and intensely luiinteresting 
discussion was here summarily put a stop to by the 
appearance in the room of several ladies who had 
respectively claims upon the respective talkers, and 
who were ready and willing to inspect the inside 
of the luncheon hall. 

"How singularly our hours of refection havo 
changed," remarked Mr. L. Inthelaw. "You re- 


1 radimond v. Smith, 8 Barn. & C. 0. 

2 Jailei v. Cardinal, o5 Wis. 118. 

3 Dessaucr v. Baker, 1 "Wilson (Ind.) 429. 
♦ Milford V. Wesley, 1 Wilson (Ind.) 110. 







member that in the sixteenth century the saying was : 

* Lever a cinq, diner a nouf, 
Sonper a ciiK]. couclier a nouf, 
Fait vivro d'ans nonanto et ueuf.' 

"And even in the early days of tlie reign of 
Louis Xiy tlie dinner liourof tlie court was eleven 
o'clock, or noon at the latest." 

'• Yes," I replied, "I have noticed that the his« 
torians say that one of the causes whicii hastened 
the deatli of Louis XII was his chanu^iiiLj: his dinner 
liour from nine to twelve at the solicitation of his 
wife. What a line house this is ! " 

" Well, sir," was the response, "believe a stranger 
and a foreigner when he tells you that, good as aro 
some of the hotels in Europe, the American ones 
surpass them all both in size and in general fitness 
of pur[)ose." 

"I am glad to hear you say so. I presume that 
the great extent of our territory, the natural disj)o- 
sition of our people to travel, our extensive network 
of railways, have developed our hotel system, and 
made it, as you say, without a jiarallel in the world," 
I re])lied. 

"Have you traveled much, sir?" asked Mrs. 

"Yes, well nigh all round tlie world. And so, I 
flatter myself, I have had more experience in hotels 
than most men." 

"You jnust have seen a great variety," I re- 

The Englishman smilingly replied : " In far ofE 
China I have carried about my own bedding from 




inn to inn, not carinj^ to occnpy that in wlilch a 
Celestial, a Tartar, or a Russian had slept the night 
before. In France, I have taken around my littlo 
])iece ot* soap, an almost unknown luxury in Conti- 
nental hotels. In India, I have lodged in the dak 
bungalows ju'ovich.'d by the government, where the 
articles of furniture are like donkey's gallops — few 
and far between. There you must manage the 
commissariat department yourself if you would not 
starve. I I'emendjer once sto})ping at one of the best 
country hotels in the Bombay Presidency, and was 
given a sitting-room, a bed-room, and a bath-room ; 
but in the first a number of birds had built their 
nests, and Hew in and out and roundabout at their 
pleasure ; in the bed-room a colony of ants ..: warmed 
over the L'^or, while in my third room cockroaches 
and other creeping things gave a variegated hue to 
the })avement; everything else was in keeping." 

" Horrors ! " exclaimed Mrs. L. 

"Unpleasant, to say the least," I remarked, " un« 
less, indeed, you were a naturalist." 

"I tliiidv," continued our traveled friend, "that 
one never feels at home in an European hotel. You 
never know your landlonl or your fellow-sojourners ; 
the table (.Vhotc in the grand dining-halls prevents all 
intercourse between the guests ; they never liave a 
smoking-room, a billiard-ro(jui, a bar-room, or a bath- 
room ; if you want to do ' tumbles ' you are furnished 
with a rcGjular old tub." 

"I know that from experience," said my wife. 
"Once at a grand hotel in Florence I wanted a 
bath, and was promised one. By-and-by, as I sat at 

f' H 





niy window ill tlio gloaming, I saw a man trundling 
a handciirt containing a bath and somo barrels, la 
a lew minutes two men solemnly ushered this iden- 
tic:d tulj into my room, then in three suecessivo trips 
they brought in three barrels of water, two cold, 
the other jiot; a isheet was spread over tho bath, 
and the water allowed to gurgle out of the bung- 
hole into it, while with uprolied sleeve the swarthy 
Italian mingled tho hot and tho cold with his hand 
till what he considered a suitable temperature was 
gained. When all was ready, the man coolly asked 
how soon he should come back for his aj)paratus. 
Actually there was neither bath nor water in tho 
liotel, idtlujugh the Arno rolled beneath its win- 
dows. As you say, bath-rooms are unknowu in 
civilized Europe." 

"Then, again,'' I said, " if you want your dinner, 
and are not at table cVJiote^ you must write out a list 
of what you want as long as a newspaper editoritd, 
hand it in, and wait longer than it would take to 
set it up in typo before the eatables appear. I have 
known peo^jle wait an liour at swell hotels, and 
then go away unsatisfied." 

" There are i)lenty of hotels in all large English 
towns," said our friend ; "but none a quarter of 
size of the large caravansaries to be found in Is f 
York, Philadel})hia, Chicago, or San Francisco. 
Their exteriors are rather fine, a few rooms are well 
furnished ; but, on the whole, they are dark and 

" Were you ever at the Grand Hotel du Louvre, 
in Paris? " asked my wife. 



"Yes. What a splendid place it is! The diniiii^- 
room is not the largest, but it is as fine as any in 
the world ; its ornamentation is so chaste, its chan- 
deliers so splendid, its mirrors so magnilicent, and 
the dinner is perfection; in fact, as some one says, 
it is the elysiumof Um bofi-vivdnts iind the paradise 
of the esthetic. But if I go on in this style you 
vill take mo for a * runner' for first-class liotels." 
AW» then i)asscd on to another subject, as the read- 
er must to another cha])ter. 

: 1 ! 

! 1 


i I 


t i 


;, ; 

Chapter IV, 


A fashionable young gent — a dweller in tlic city 
• — (on whose face nature, as iu tlie case of the 
Honorable Percy Popjoy, luid burst out witli a 
chhi-tuft, but, exhausted with tlie effort, had left 
tlie rest of the countenance smootli as an infant's 
cheek) had been enjoying himself with some kin- 
dred spirits, (and some spirits far stronger, too.) 
and being belated, as well as rather bewildered, 
with the potations of the evening, went to bed iu 
our hotel. The next morning he found himself the 
possessor of a splitting headache, but minus his gold 
repeater; so he kindly and condescendingly con- 
sulted m ) upon the subject of the proprietor's lia- 
bility to make 2;ood his loss. 

I told him that in my opinion he had better save 
up his money and buy a new Avatch, for there were 
several reasons why the hotel-keeper need not give 
him one. 

"What are they?" he asked. 

" We need not consider," I re2)lied, " tlie ques- 
tion of your negligence in carelessly exhibiting 
your watch among a lot of people at the bar, nor 
in leaving your door unlocked, nor need we siy 
tUat because your intoxication contributed to the 
loss, therefore the landlord is not liable.^ The fact 

I Walsh V. Portcrfield, Sup. Ct. Ta. 10 Alb. L. J. 370. 





thut you were not a traveler is sufficient to prevent 
vour recoverini'. Loni:ic since it was laid clown in old 
Bacon that inns are for pasi^engers and wayfaring 
men, so that a friend or a neiglibor can have no 
action as a <jfuest ar^ainst the landlord." l 

"Wliat iu thunder have I to do is 
laid down in old Bacon?" 

" What is to be found inside old Bacon, and old 
calf, and old sheep, has a good deal to do with 
every one who makes an old i»ig of himself," I 
testily replied. 

"I trust, sir, that you use that last epithet in its 
Pickwickian sense," said the young exquisite. 

"Certainly, certainly,'' I hastened to rejdy, "if 
you will so accept it." 

'• Then I would ask," continued my interrogator, 
"must a man be a cert.'iin lensith of time at an 
liotel before he is entitled to the i)rivilegcs of a 
guest ? " 

"Oh, dear, no! Merely ])urchasing temporary 
refreshment at an inn makes the }»urchaser a guest 
and renders the innkeeper liable for the safety of 
the goods he may have with him,- if he is a trav- 

"But who is a traveler?" 

" One who is absent from his home, whether on 
])leasure or busijiess.'^ A townsman or neighbor, 
who is actually traveling, may be a guest.'* In a 

'.;! : 

^ n.icon, Abridc:.. vol. 4, p. 448. 

2;Mcr)onalJ c. Edgcrtou, 6 J>arb. 5G0; Bennett v. iMellor, 5 
T. 11.274. 
" Per Coekburn, C. J., Atkinson v. Sellurs, o C. li. N. S. 44L'. 
"* Walliuij c. rotter, oo Cuuu. ISJ. 





'■ ti I 




\ :t 



New York case, wlicre a rt'siduiit of llio town left 
his liorses at the iiiu Btublcs, it was decided that 
the proprietor was not liable f. r them.^ So if a 
ball in given at an liotel the guests present cannot 
hold the proprietor liable for any losses occurring 
M'hile tliey are tri])piiig the light fantastic toe, as 
he did not receive them in his ])ublic capacity." ^ 

" But," remarked a person standing by, " but how 
would it be if a traveler left his baggage at an hotel 
and stopped elsewhere?" 

"If one leaves any dead thing, as baggage, at an 
inn he will in)t be considered a guest ;^ if, on the 
other hand, he leaves a horse, he becomes entitled 
to all the privileges and immunities of a guest, 
even thouii;h ho himself lod<jjes elsewhere." ^ 

" Why the difference ? " quoth one. 

"I might, perhaps, be more correct if I said that 
on this point the authorities are antagonistic.^ The 
distinction, however, was made because, as the 
horse must be fed, the innkeeper has a profit out of 
it, whereas he gets nothing out of a dead fhing.G 
One need not, however, take all his meals or lodge 
every night at the inn where his baggage is. It is 
Buflicient if he takes a room and lod.ojes or boards 
at the house part of the time.' 


1 C.rinnoll v. Cook, o Hill, (N. Y.) 48G. 

2C;iitcr V. Jlobbs, 12 JNJkh. 52. 

"GuUey v. Clarke, Cro. Juc. 188; Orango Co, Dank v. 
Brown, U^Vc!na. 114. 

4 York V. Crindstono, 1 Salk. 388; Mason v. Thomiisou, *J 
Tick. L'80; Feet v. IMcOraw, 25 Wend. 053. 

cingalsbeo r. Woods, 33 N. Y. 577; Parsons on Contracts, 
Vol. 2, p. 153. 

c York r. drindstono, supra. 

"McDaniels v. llobinsou, 2G Yt. 310. 




"I tliiiik I liave hciird tliiit if one innkos an 
agreement fur boarding by tlie week, lie ceases to 
liave the rights of a guest," said the previous 

"The lengtli of time for which a person resides 
at an liotel does not affect Ids rights, so long as lie 
retains liis transient character ;-^ nor does lie cease 
to be a guest by proposing after liis arrival to rc- 
niaiu a certain lime, nor l)y liis ascertaining the 
charges, nor by paying in advance, nor from time 
to time ;is his wants arc supplied,^ nor even by ar- 
rnnufinuc to i)ay so nnich a week for his board, if lie 
stays so k)ng, after he has taken up his quarters at 
the house; 3 but if when he first arrives he makes 
a agreement as to board,"^ or for tlie use of 
a room,^ he never becom es a <i:uest, and tlie inn- 
keeper's liability is totally different, being only that 
of an ordinary bailee. One visiting a boarder at 
an inn is a guest, and the keeper is liable for tho 
loss of his goods, though not of the boarder's." G 

"And when does a ])erson cease to have tho 
rights of a guest?'' again queried the questioner. 

I replied, "An innkeeper's liability, as such, 
ceases when the guest pays his bill and (piits tho 
house with the declared intention of not returniuLr, 

^ Parldmrst r. Foster, Sal. nSS. 

- I'iiikertou c. Woodward, ;•..} Cal. 5.17. 

"Shoccraft v. iJailey, '_',' Iowa, 53 ". ; lierksliiro AVooUcn Co. 
r. l»roctor, 7 Cush. 417 ; Hall v. I'iko, 100 Mass. 4!»5. 

•'Cliambcrlaiu r. Mastcrson, liO Ala. .'171 ; ^lanuiiij^?'. "NVclls, 
Ilumitli. 74(5; Ewart r. Stark, 8 Rich. 423; llursh v. Beyers, 
1>1) Mo. 4iJ:); I'arkhurst r. Foster, Sal. u88. 

c I'arkcr r. Flint, VI ^lod. L'55. 

CLusk y. Ijeloto, 212 ^liun. 4G8. 


^l ■ 







r.nd if lie llion loaves any of Ills possessions beliind 
liim, tlie 1 ndlord is no loncirer liable for their safe 
keeping, unless lie lias t.-iken speeial eliarge of ihem, 
and then only as any other eomnion bailee Avoukl 
be.i vVnd this a})pears to be so, even when an ar- 
ranijcinent lias been made for the keep of the guest's 
horse.- Unless spceially authorized, a elerk cannot 
bind his master bv an a<]::reement to keep safelv n, 
Gjuest's baircjaijre after he leaves." 3 

" But supposing one pays his bills and goes off ex- 
pecting to have his traps sent after him immediately 
to the station?" questioned a new interrogator. 

" Mrs. Clark went to ' The Exchange Hotel ' in 
Atlanta, with eight trunks ; on leaving, the ])orter 
of the inn took charge of the baggage, promising to 
deliver it for her at the cars. lie lost two of the 
]>ieces, and it was held that the liability of the 
hotel-keeper continued until such delivery was 
actually made.'^ On the same principle that when 
an innkee])er sends his porter to the cars to receive 
the baggage of intending guests, he is responsible 
until it is actually re-delivered into the custodv of 
the guests. And where a man paid his bill for the 
whole day and went off, leaving his trunk, with 
twenty cents for porterage, to be sent to the boat, 
the innkeeper was held liable uni' the baggage 
was actually put on board.^ The liability for bag- 

1 Wiutcrmate v. Clarke, 5 Sandf. 2G2; LawrcncG v. Howard, 
1 Utah T. 14i>. 
2McI)ani('ls v. P.oljinson, 28 Vt. 387. 
sCorkindalo r. Eaton, 40 How. N. Y. Pr. 2GG. 
4 Sasseou v. Clark, 37 Ga. 242. 
6 Giles V. Fatmtleroy, 13 Md. 12G. 





gage left with an innkeeper with his consent, con- 
tinues for a reasonable time after tlie settlement of 

the bill, 



asonable ti 


responsible for gross negligence. 

lere a visitor 

had actual notice that the landlord would not be 
responsible for valuables unless i)ut under his care, 
and on preparing to depart gave a trunk containing 
precious goods into the care of the servants and it 
was lost, yet the innkeeper was held liable.- So, 
also, where valuables were stolen from a trunk 
after the guest had packed it, locked his room, and 
given notice of his departure, and delivered the 
key of his room to the clerk to have the trunk 
brouixht down.3 What is all that row about?" 

Weary of the conversation, and being attracted 
by some rather loud conversation in another part 
of the room, I walked off to see what it was all 
about, and soon found that it was anent a young 
lady's age. 

" I bet you she is — " began one of the disputants. 

" Stop! " I cried, "that is not a ])roper wager." 

"Begad! what do you mean, sir?" was queried 
in tones not the mildest. 

" Simply that where a wager concerns the person 
of another, no action can be maintained upon it. 
As Bulk*r, J., once remarked, a bet on a lady's age, 
or wliother she lias a mole on lier face, is void. No 
person has a right to make it a subject of discussion 
in a court (jf justice, whether she passes lierself in 









1 Adams v. Clenn, 41 Ga. G5. 

2 Stanton i\ Lelaml, 4 E. D. Smith, 88. 

^liondetson v. French, 4G N. Y. 2GG; Kellogg v. Sweeney, 
Ibid. 2'Jl. 







the world to be more in the bloom of youtli than 
she really is, or whether what is aj^parent to every 
one who sees her, is a mole or a wart; although a 
lady cannot bring an action against a man for say- 
ing she is thirty-three when she i3asses for only 
twenty-three, nor for saying she has a wart on lier 
face. Nor will the courts try a wager as to whether a 
young lady squints with her right eye or witli her 
Icft.^ And Lord Mansfield came to very much the 
same conclusion in discussiuij the law in a celebrated 
wager case concerning the gender of a certain in- 
dividual,2 because, as liis lordship remarked, actions 
on such wagers would disturb the peace of individ- 
uals and society." 

"Confound it, the fellow seems to have swallowed 
a law library," muttered one man ; while another 

"But surely many wagers equally as absurd have 
been sued on in courts of law with success." 

"There is no doubt of that," I replied. "It was 
done upon a bet of 'six to four that Bob Booby 
would win the plate at the New Lichfield races ;'^ 
also, upon a wager of a ' rump and dozen ' whether 
one of the betters were older than the other.^ In 
the latter case the C. J. modestly said that he did 
not judicially know what a 'rump and dozen' 
meant; but another judge more candidly remarked 
that privately he knew that it meant a good dinner 
and wine. And a bet as to whose father would die 

iGood V. Elliott, 3 T. R. G93. 
2 Da Costa v. Jones, Cowper, 720. 
8 McAllister v. lladeu, 2 Campb. 436. 
4 llussey V. Crickett, 3 Campb, IGO. 





first was lieM good, altliough one okl man was de- 
fiinct at the time, llio fact not being known to llio 
parties.^ But Lord EDcnborongli refused to try 
an action on a Meager on a cock-figlit." - 

"Altbougli at common Liw many wagers were 
legal," remarked tbc Englisb gentleman alluded to 
aforetime, " still, in England, as tbelaw now stands, 
all wagers are null and void at law,^ and if tlui loser 
citber cannot or won't pay, tbe law will not assist 
tbc winner;'^ but eilber party may recover tbo 
Btake deposited by bim, before it is paid over to 
tbe winner by tbe Iiolder. Tbat point was settled 
in tbe case of a genius wbo bet all tbe i>bilosopbers, 
divines, and scientilio professors in tbe United 
Kingdom, £'>00, Ibat tbey could not i)rovc tbo ro- 
tundity and revolution of tbe eartb from Scripture, 
from reason, or from fact, tbe wager to be won by 
tbe taker if bo could exbibit to tbo satisfaction of 
an intelligent referee a convex raiKvay, canal, or 
lake." ^ 

"Was tbo referee satisfied?" asked a bystander. 

"Yes; it was proved to bis satisfaction tbat on a 
canal, in a distance of six miles, tbero was a curva- 
ture to and fro of five feet, more or less. And tbeu 
tbo man asked bis stake back, and got it, too." 

"In New York," I said, "it bas been bold, under 
a statute giving tbe losing party a rigbt of action 
against tbo stake-bolder for tbo stake, wbetber tbo 

1 Earl of March r. Pigot, 5 Burr. 2S02. 

2 Squires ?'. Wliiskeii, u Camp. HO. 
3Soo 8 and 1) Vict., chap. 101). 

< Savago r. Madden, oG L. J. Ex. 178. 

fi Hampden v. Walsh, L. K. 1 Q. B. Div. 189. 

' ••I 




! i 


|{ i 

Btnkc linsboon ]i:ii(l over hy IIk^ stMko-li'Odcror not, 
and Avlictlior llio WMijjcr 1x3 lost or iiol, tiiat iho 
holder is liiililc to tli(3 loser, aitlioiiij^li lu; had ]>aid 
over thcj staki; by his directions. i And in several of 
the States, if the wager is illegal, the stak(^-hol<"!er 
is liable to be made refund the stakes, notwith- 
standing payment to tlu^ winner."' 2 

"Such decisions are subvv'rsivo of all honor and 
honesty," said a betting looking character. 

"Not so. A bet should bo a contract of honor, 
and no more. One should not bet uidess ho can 
trust his ojiponent. The time of the courts of law 
should not be taken u}) by such matters." 

"Are tlu! American courts as h:ird upon wagers 
as the Knulish ? " asked the Englishman. 

"Quite so," I replie(b "In S(jmo jiarls of the 
country they have been prohibited by statute, and 
some courts have denied them any validity what- 
ever. Tn Colorado it was held that the courts liad 
enough to do without devoting their time to the 
solution of questions arising out of idle bets made 
on dog and cock-fights, horse-races, the speed of 
trains, the construction of railroads, the n.umber on 
a. dice, or the character of a card that may bo 
turned up.*^ Even if admitted to be valid in any 
case, it is quite clear upon the authorities that they 
cannot be upheld where they refer to the person or 
property of another, so as to make him infamous or 

1 Rucliraan v. Titchcr, 1 Comst. 393. 

2 Garrison v. McGregor, 51 111. 473; Adkins v. Fleming, 29 
Iowa, 122; Soarlo v. Prevost, 4 Iloust. (Del.) 4G7. But see 
Johnston v. Russell, 37 Cal. G70. 

SEklreil v. MuUoy, 2 Col. 320. 



to injure liiin, or if tliey are libelous, or indecent, or 
tend to break the peace.i In some States it lias 
been decided that \vagers u})on the i-esult of elec- 
tions arc ngainst |>ubli(', i)oIi('y, and tliereforo void. 
In California, durinij^ the i)residential canii)aign of 
180.'^, a man called Johnson bet that Horatio Sev- 
mour would ha\'e a majority of votes in that State, 
while one Freeman bet that U. S. Grant would be 
the lucky man. ]Mr. Ilussell was the stakeholder. 
After the i-esult of the election was known, John- 
son demanded his money back, but Russell honor- 
ably ]»aid it over to the winner; so J. turned round 
and sued for it. The Court held, that if Johnson 
had repudiated bis bet and asked for bis money be- 
fore the election, or before tho result was known, 
he might have -ot it, but that now be was toolate.2 
Judge Sander.'on remarked that in times of politi- 
cal excitement i)ers()ns might be provoketl to make 
wafers which they might I'egret in their cooler mo- 
ments. No obstacles, ho thought, should be thrown 
in the way of their rej)entance, and if they re- 
tracted before the bet has been decided, their money 
ought to be returned; but those who allow their 
stakes to remain until after the wager has been 
decided and the result known, are entitled to no 
such consideration ; their tears, if any, arc not re- 
]>entant tears, but such as crocodiles shed over the 
victims they are about to devour." ^ 

"Ah, then it has been judicially decided that 


1 Parsons on Contrartn, vol. 2, p. 75(>. 

2 Yates r. Foot, 12,Iolins. 1. 

3 Juliusou V. Russell, o7 Cal. G70. 


j ! . 


i, ', 
i ■ - 




(M'ocodllcs weep," sarcastically observctl a by- 


From talking on wagcrinjj^, wo naturally i) 
to the subject of gaming — a kindrecl vice. 

"I believe tbat in England there is a law forbid- 
ding an innkeeper to allow any gaming on his ])reni- 
ises," I remai'ked. 

"Yes," said the English barrister. "Any licensed 
inidvceper who suffers any gaming or betting or 
unlawful games upon his premises, runs the risk of 
beinui: fined." ^ 

"What do they consider gaming?" asked a rak- 
ish looking individual, who seemed as if he under- 
stood practically what it was. 

"Playing at any game for money,^ or beer, 
or money's worth ;'^ or even exhibiling betting 
lists." ^ 

"That seems precious hard," quotli the rake. 

"In one case an innkeeper was i)unished for al- 
lowing his own i)rivato friends to i>lay at cards for 
money in his own i)rivate room, on the licensed 

Enufland," remarked the 





" That was almost as l)ad as the tavcrnkceper 
who was fined by some energetic Yorkshire magis- 

1 "Wharton on Tnnkoopers, G2. 

'-5 Ilex V. Ashton, 22 L. J. M. G. 1. 

8 Danford v. Taylor, 22 L. T. Hep. 4S3 ; Toot v. Baker, G 
Scott iX.R. 301. 

4 Searlo v. St. Martins' J. J. 4 J. r. 270 ; Avards v. Dunce, 
2G J. r. 4:!7. 

a Patten v. Hliymer, 29 L. J. M. C. 189. 



Irate for bciiii^ drunk in his own bctl, in liis own 
house !"^ observed .'inotlier. 

''Farewell to tlie fond notion that an En'jflish- 
man's house is liis eastle ! '' inclodraniati(;alIy ex- 
elainied tlie youtli. 

*' l>ut i)lease allow nic to say that Lust, J., lield, 
in ;i very recent case, that although an innkeeper, 
if drunk on his own premises while they arc opcMi, 
is as much amenable to the penalty as if ho 
was found drunk upon the hi<^hway, vet it could 
never have been intended that an innkeeper who is 
drunk in liis own bedroom should bo liable any 
more than a person — not a publican — found drunk 
in his own private house," 2 said the Englishman. 

"And wiiat, pray, may be the unlawful games 
which arc so strictly forbidden inside the tavern— 
the poor man's home?" asked the youth. 

"Dice, ace of hearts, faro, basset, hazard, passage, 
or any game played with dice, or with any instru- 
ment, engine, or device in the n;iture of dice, hav- 
ing figures or numbers thereon, and roulette, or 
rolly-poUy ; and bull-baiting, bear-baiting, badger- 
baiting, dog-fighting, cock-lighting, and all such 
games, are unlawful," replied the Englishman. 
• "Surely, you have not got through the black list 
yet," ironically remarked our rake. 

"Those mentioned, and the game of puff and 
dart, if played for money or money's worth,*^ and 
lotteries and sweepstakes, except in cases of art 
unions, where works of art are given as prizes, aro 



I I 

1 Wharton, 81. 

2 Lester r. Torrens, L. K. 2 Q. li. Div. 403. 
8 13ew V. llarstou. L. R. a Q. B. Div. 454. 

I • 





all tlio giimcs r r(MiKMnl)cr, that arc prohibited by 
the St:itnt(>s of llcnry VIII, Gcorgo II, and her 
present Majesty." 

"May I ask wliat c^amos you arc ]>erinltted to in- 
dul;j!;(! in? I <lo not sec tliat any arc left, except the 
*«jjrinninu; (hroui^h a halter,' spoken of in 77i<! Sjn'c- 
t(Uoi\ in which highly intelhotual an<l moral con- 
test the rule is 

"'Tim (Iroiidfullcst, grinnor 
To bo tlio wiiuicr. ' 

" Backgauinion and all games played upon back- 
gammon boards,^ (pioits, tennis, and all games of 
mere skill, are i)erfe('tly lawful, unless played for 
money or money's worth.' 2 

"And what of billiards?" 

" Oh, that is not unlawful unless played for 
money." ^ 

"No wonder," said Mr, Rake, "that i»eo])le emi- 
grate from that benighted land. And yet Henry 
VII, and James I, and his estimable son, Prince 
Henry, were remarkably fond of having a game of 
cards; although Scotch Jamie was so lazy a coon 
that he required a servant to hold his hand for him. 
I believe that those good sovereigns who j^^i'^'i'titl 
these virtuous laws took care to except from their 
operation their royal palaces." ^ 

"I would remind you, my good sir," I said, "that 
gaming is forbidden in almost all the States ; thai 

ii;iG(>o. TT, chap. 19. 

2 8 and Vict. chap. 109. sec. 1. 

^ AVharton, 05. 

4 Abiuger, C. B., iii Mo-XiuucU v. Robinson, 3 M. & AV. 433 




a, jiulgo ill South CaroliiiJi said that if ho couhl 
huvo his own way, ho would liold I hat a hilliard 
room ko|it for filthy hici'o's sako was a iiuisanoo at 
conunou hiw ; ^ aud tho saiiu; judg(; docidod that a 
howliniJj-alU'y kojtt for i^ain was a iiuisaiu!0. In 
Kentucky, it was licld unhiwful to tlirow dit'o to sec 
Avho sliould pay for tlio drinks ; 2 in Vir;jjiuia, het- 
tiiiL^ on a gauio of bagatelle was held illegal; 3 
while in Tennessee, selling j»rize-eandy ])aekages 
"Was decided to ho LC'iniini; and indictable."'^ 

"Alas, my country! 


" I>y the way, do you remember, sir, the distinc- 
tion the Ettrick Shepherd drew l)etweeii tho card- 
jdaying of old ])eoplo and that of young folk?" 
asked an elderly bystander of Seotian descent. 

"Xo, what was it?" 

"lie says, 'you'll generally tin' that auld folk 
that l>hiy carrds have been raither freevolous, and 
no mucklc addicteed to thocht, unless they're 
greedy, and i)lay for tho pool, which is fearsome in 
auld age. But as for young folks, lads and lasses 
like, when the gude man and his wife are gaen to 
bed, what's tho harm in a gaem at cairds? It's a 
checrfu' noisy sicht o' comfort and confusion ; sic 
lookin' into ano ainitlier's ban's! sic fauso shufllin'! 
sic unfair dealin' ! sic winkin' to tell your pairtner 
that ye hao tho king or the ace ! And when that 
winna do, sic kicken' o' shins an' treadiii' on taea 

1 Tanner r. Albion, 5 Ilill, 12S ; but see Peoplo v. Surgeaut, 
8 Cowcn, lo'X 
- Me Daniels ik Commonwealth, Uusli. o2'o. 
» Ne;il"s Case, 22 Gratt. 017. 
* Eubauks v. State, o Ilersk. 488. 

:i I 


HI 1 ' 






i 1 I 

h\ 1 ' 



''I ' 

! : 




aiicatli the tuble — often tlio wrong ancs ! Then what 
gigglin' umang the lasses ! what amiable, nay, love 
qii.'UTels between pairtners! jokin' an' jeestin', and 
lanntin' an' too/lin' — the eawnel blawn out, an' the 
sound of a thousan' kisses. That's eaird-playiu' in 
the kintra, Mr. North, and where's the man amang 
yc that '11 daur to say tliat it 's no' a pleasant j)as- 
tinie o' a winter nieht, when the snaw is a cumin' 
doon the hun, or the speat 's roarin' amang the 
mirk mountains? " 

"• Give us tliat in English," said the forward 
young man, as he left the room. 

* 4- ;^ iff iff 

There was a door between our ])edroom and that 
adjoining. Upon taking i)ossession, we tried it ; it 
appeared fast, but the key was not on our side and 
the bolt was hors die combat. 

My wife had retired for the night, and was rap- 
idly approaching that moment when the rustling 
silk, the embroidered skirt, tlie jiannier, the braids, 
and elaborately arranged coiffure are exchanged for 
a robe do melt of virgin white and a bob of hair on 
the head, simplex numdltlis. Suddenly the door 
between the two rooms creaked, squeaked, and 
02)ened, and a creature clad in man's attire pro- 
truded his head. When, however, he s:iw that the 
room Avas occupied he drew back, laughing to him- 
self as lie locked the door. 

On my arrival I found the partner of my joys 
and sorrows perched upon the bed like Patience on 
a monument. Innnediately chambermaids, house- 
maids, and waiters were summoned, and informed 



1 1 

that the kov must bo taken out of that dreadful 
door and placed in llie ofliee. After liis voyage of 
discovery, Paul Pry liad gone out, so a Avaiter 
entered the room, took the key, and liaving ham- 
pered the lock of P. P.'s door, lie passed out via 
our room, my -wife jjjracefuHv retiriu'j; into a closet. 
When we were (luictlv recliniuL!: on our downv 
couch Avc heard our neiufhhor makiu'jc fruitless 
efforts to regain Ids roo!n; in vain he summoned 
the chambermaid with her kevs: m vain camo 
the waiter with his. P. P. had to pass the nlglit 
in another apartment, minus his toilet appoint- 

"What would I have done," asked my wife, "if 
tliat horrid wretch had come into the room?'' 

"Oh, we could have l)rou2:ht an action of tres- 
pass against liim;i for tlio possession we have of 
this room is quite suflicient to entitle us to recover 
against a wrong-doer, although we could not ii lin- 
tain such an action against the liotel-keeper if he 
ehould enter for any proper purpose." ^ 

"But that would not be a very great satisfac- 
tion," said my wife. 

" Well, it is the best we could do, for we could 
not summon to our aid the good spirits that inter- 
fered on belialf of the Lady Godiva to i)unisU 
Peeping Tom." 

"But what if he had assaulted me? " ^he queried. 

"Well, lam afraid I would have liad to settle 
the matter willi him, for an innkeeper is not bound. 


iGraliara v. Toat. 1 East, 240. 

2 Doy lo r. Walker, 20 U C. R. CO'?. 





i ' 


It . 





to Ivccp safe the bodies of hh guests,^ but merely 
their baggage; that is, such articles of necessary 
or person;)] convenience as are usually carried by 
travelers for their own use, the facts and circum- 
stances of each case decidincr what these articles 
may be .2 Hush ! what is that? " 

" A mosquito." 

"Well, I must kill it." 

"iSTevcr mind," urged my wife. "Spare the 
little creature." 

" I can't stand their bites any more than my bet- 
ter^s, and others who have gone before. When 
they ])ierced the boots of the Father of his Country 
in the New Jersey marshes, that exemplary indi- 
vidual indulged in bad language ; they drove buck 
the army of Julian the Apostate, or apostle, as Lord 
Kenyon called jiim; they compelled Sapor, the 
Persian, to raise the siege of Nisib<3s, stinging his 
elephants and camels into mxidness ; they render 
pome parts of the banks of the Po uninhabitable, 
and cause people in some countries t » sleep in pits 
with nothing but their lieads above ground. IIow, 
then, can you expect me to lie quietly hero and 
wait to have their horrid w;ir-w]iOop sung in mine 
ears, as they dance in giddy mazes from side to 
Fide, ere they plunge their sharp stilettos into my 
bhrinking flesh ? " 

Forthwith I arose, lit the gas, and w^andered 
round and round the room, a white-stoled acolvto 
of science, with a towel in my hand, ready to take 

SIS ,; 

m" I 

iCaylo'8Case,8Co. .".2. 

2 J^sseea r. Clark, a? Ga. 242. 



tlic life of any member of the extensive family of 
Cidex Pipien.<t. Long was tlic search after the 
tireless musician, blowing his own trumpet as cn- 
thusiasticallv as anv other musical "■enius. jMy wife 
mocked me as I danced about, fli|)}»iiig to tliu right 
and to the left; but at last IMrs. ]Mosquito, swan- 
like, sang a song, which (to me, at least) was her 
sweetest, as it was her last. 



v,r i 


Chapter V. 


Shortly after tliis, while traveUng in a 2)alacecar, 
and during the night, Mrs. Lawv * lost some of her 
paraphernalia, and felt strongly iuelmed to make a 
row about it; but I quoted the sublime words of 
Bomebody or other, "Let us have peace,'' and then 
told her that the owners of sleeping cars — who re- 
ceive i)ay in advance from travelers merely for the 
Bleei)ing accommodations afforded by their cars, 
and this only from a i)articular class of persons, ami 
for a particular berth, and for a particular trip — are 
not liable as innkeepers for money or 2)roperty that 
may be stolen from the lodgers on their cars ; and 
that, as they only furnish sleeping accommodation 
for travelers who have already paid the railway 
company — over whose line the cars run — for their 
transportation, and receive no part of the fare paid 
for transportation, they are not common carriers, 
nor are they liable for property lost or stolen from 
their carriages. Mr. Cliester M. Snuth, who lost 
$1,180 on the Pullman car "Missouri," in the State 
of Illinois, in Decembei', 1S7'J, was the innocent 
cause of the enunciation of the law upon this i)oint. 
Tlie court held tliat a Pullman car is not a com- 
mon inn — that it does not accommodate ])ersons 
imliscriminately — does not furnidi victual and lodg- 
ing, but only lodging — affords no accommodu-. 

t76 3 

'^' ^ 



tion but a berth and bed, and a place and conven- 
iences for toilet ]turposes — does not receive pay for 
caring, nor undertake to care, for tlic goods of 
travelers; but the accommodation afforded is tlio 
result of an express contract, and that the liabili- 
ties of innkeej)ers should not be extended to othcrs.i 
"We had passed from one State into another, and 
liad now taken up our (piarters at a magnificent hotel 
(its name will not be mentioned, for I do not desiro 
to injure any of the other houses). As we stepped 
out of the cab, wo entered a vast and liandsomo 
office of white marble, and passed up to the splendid 
parlors and luxurious bed-rooms above. Tlie way 
I wrote our names in the register, and asked for 
dimier in our private sitting-room, led the gentle- 
manly clerk to believe that myself and Mrs. Lawyer 
had but lately cntere<l into a partnership for weal 
and woe; this I found when the elegantly attired 
waiters served our dinner. The whole service was 
one continued tribute to Love. On tlie soup tureen 
were little Cupids, training a Imgc turtle; on the 
fish plates, as mermaids and mermen, tliev were 
riding on salmon and dolphins; on the other dishes, 
these naked little rascals Hew about among beau- 
tiful birds, hid under strawberry vines, or swung 
in si)ider-web hammocks from sprays of wild black- 
berry ; they dug in ravines like mountain gnomes, 
and pried and lifted carrots with comical machi- 
nery, as though they were great bars and ingots of 
yellow gold. Some of the disii-covers were shaped 
hke cabbages, and Cupids peeped from, under every 

1 Pullman Palace Car Co. r. Smith, 73 111. 3G0, 



U i 




i ' 



( ■ 



curling loaf ; others, ag.iin, gathered the vintago 
and trod the grapes. Last of all, on the dessert 
service was represented the marriage of the queen 
of the flower fairies, each piece a different flower, 
with u hjvc perched on it, some with torches, others 
with instruments of music; while the central stand 
represented the ceremony itself; a scarlet eardinaU 
flower was saying mass, and on the liighest point 
of the dish, (which represented a church tower,) {\ 
chorus of these sprites of Venus w^ere tugging at tho 
stamens of a cliinie of fuchsias, like boys merrily 
pulling the ropes of wedding hells. Each piece 
differed from the others, but tliere was a love in 
every one. My wife was in raptures over the 
beautiful china, the exquisite elves, the graceful 
flowers, the delicate sentiments, tlie jioetry in the 
artist's soul thus moulded into form — hardened 
into a thing <>f beauty, a joy forever. She could 
not restrain h^ . exclamations of delight, as course 
succeeded coui ^', even in the presence of the sedate 
attendants. Each new beauty called forth a new 
expression of wonder and i)leasure. She would 
scarce allow anything on her }>late, so anxious was 
bhe to study the devices and designs. I was calmer, 
being older, hungrier, less ethereal, and feeling an 
inner consciousness that a lieavv bill would bo the 
buccessor of these fairy scenes. 

Even this dinner came to an end, lonci: though 
we toved over the dessert. The china afforded ri 
ceaseless toi)ic of conversation, until at length little 
fairies of another kind began to hang uj^on the long 
black lashes which veiled my wife's beantiful brown 
eyes, and we pujaeied into our bed-chamber. 



Over the maiild-picco of our doriiiitory liiinix a 
card, on which was i)riiitcHl llio following: 

"take notice. 

"This building is firc-jiroof. 

"Several robberies having tak(Mi place during 
the night, in the i)rineii)al liotels, the |)roj)rietor 
respectfully requests all visitors to use the night- 

"Money, jewelry, or articles of value are re- 
quested to be left at the bar, otherwise the ])ro- 
prietor will not hold hiniself respon>il)lo for any 
loss. "A. B., Proprietor." 

My wife, who was ra])idly increasing in legal 
knowledge and acuteness under my able instruc- 
tions, and was lllled with the romantic idea of be- 
coming a veritable helpmate to me in my ]>rofes- 
Bion as well as in the ex})enditure of my money, 
after readinij: the nolicc asked me if I was croint' to 
hand over my valuables. I told her that Pollock, 
C. B., had announced to the world that it was his 
opinion that such a notice did not ap; ly to those 
articles of jewelry which a person usually carries 
with him — his watch, for inst:mce — because, as the 
learned judge j)Uts it, Buch an article would l)e of 
little service to the owner if it were nightly stowed 
away in the hotel safe,' His lordship, however, was 
inclined to think that if the watch were a richly 
jeweled one, set in valuable diamonds, it would bo 
wiser to give it to the jtroprietor to keep."^ 

1 Morgan i'. Kavey, G Hurl. & N. 2Go. 

2 Ibid. 



.4 .hi 




"But llifit is an English docision," rcmarkccl my 
wife, filled with the j^onuino occidental opinion ol 
oriental notions. 

"Well, supposinc^ it is,'' I made answer, "it is in 
accord with the American; and a New York judge 
once said that altliough a watcli, a gold pen, and 
pencil-case might in some sense be called jewels, 
Btill they should be considered i)art of a traveler's 
personal clothing, or ap|)arel — and one after i-etir* 
ing to rest for tlie night is not expected to send 
down his ordinary clothing or apparel to be depos- 
ited in tlie safe."i 

"But," continued Mrs. Lawyer, "this notice is 
not exactly the same as what one generally sees; it 
says nothing about the proprietor not being liable 
for tlie loss of thinij-s above a certain sum." 

"No," I rej)lied, "and it's all the better for us; 
for if the notice required by law is not properly 
posted up in the oillce and bedrooms, tlie i)ro2;)rietor 
cannot claim the benefit of the provision relieving 
him from the liability imposed npon him by the 
common law of making good all losses and damage 
to his guests' goods and proj^erty, unless caused by 
act of God, or of i)ublic enemies. It has been held 
in Iowa that such a notice as this one does not af- 
fect the landlord's position." 2 

''To what extent can lie shirk his liability?" 
queried my wife, glancing at lier large and well- 
filled Saratoga. 

"That depends upon the particular statute of 

1 Giles r. Libby, 3G Barr. 70. But see Hyatt v. Taylor, 51 
Barb. Go2, and riosonplanter v, Iloessle, ul N. Y. 2G2. 
2Bodwe:i v. Bragg, 20 Iowa, 232. 



tlic country or State in wliicli lie liappcns to live. 
If there is not ii special law, no notice will bind tho 
guest, unless it can bo i)rovecl that he lias seen it 
before he takes possession of his rooni,^ or has 
assented to [{? In EnL^Hand, an innkeeper, if ho 
cause at least one copy of the law, (printed in plain 
tyj)e,) to be exhibited in a conspicuous part of tho 
hall or entrance to his inn, will not be liable to 
make good any loss of or injury to goods or property 
brought to the iun, to a greater extent than £oO, 
(unless it be a horse or other animal, or any gear 
appertaining thereto, or any carriage) except when 
such goods have been stolen, lost, or injured, 
through the willful act, default, or neglect of tho 
publican, or any servant in his employ; or when 
such goods have been deposited expressly for safe- 
keeping witii mine host, who, in such case, may 
require them to be j)lace(l in a box, or other rece|>. 
tacle, fastened and sealed up by the guest.^ In 
New York, the law is very similar,'* being to the 
effect that the hotel-keeper shall not be liable for 
loss of money, jewels, ornaments, or valuables, 
when he shall have provided a safe for the custody 
of such property, and shall have posted a notice to 
that effect in the room occupied by the guest, and 
the guest shall have neglected to deposit such 
projjcrty in tho safe.^ So particular arc the courts 

1 :Morc:nn v. Eavcy, "0 L. J. Ex. 131 . 

2 Bernstein v. Sweeney, oi'. N. Y. Sup. Ct. 271. 

simp. St;it., 2(» ami 27 Viot., cliap. 41, sec. 1. A siuiili.r 
statute in in force in Ontario, only tho money is limited to 
forty dollars. (37 Vict. O., chap 11, sees. 1-4. 

4 Statutes of 18^5, chap. 421. 

fi Wisconsin has a like law. (Laws of 1SG4, chap. 318.) 



li < 

m i 

1 i 



... 1 ^ 

] ■ \ 



% : , 








Upon Ibis ]i()int, tliiit when llio landlord of tho Old 
Ship Hotel, Bi-iij^lilon, Eiighuul, nniiitcMitionallyhiid 
the noticij Jiiisprintcd, so that tlie litlhi word (ict 
was oinitlocl in the sentence, wiiieh should havo 
been, (as I have; just stated) 'where such i)roperty 
shall have been stolen, lost, or injured tlirongh tho 
willful act, defjiult, or nei^lect of such inidvccper, 
or any servant in his employ,' the Court of ^V))})eal 
held that, as the notice contained no statement 
which admitted tho continuance of the common- 
law liability for goods or i)roperty stolen, lost, or 
injured ihrougli the wiPful act of the iinikeeper or 
his servant, the ])ro[)rietor was not i)rotected. But 
Lord Cairns carefully said that he was not jjre- 
pared to hold that the omission, in good faith, of a 
word or two, not material to the sense and to tho 
operation of the statute, would have such a disas^ 
trous effect." ^ 

" 3Iy husband, remember 

* Brevity's the soal of wit, 
Antl tctliousncss the limbs unci outward nourishes,' 

and bo brief. IIow can my poor brain hold all that 
you have said ? " 

" Don't be alarmed, my dear, there is doubtless 
plenty of room in your brain yet. Cut I was going 
on to say that though there is a tend'jucy in these 
degenerate days to lessen the great responsibility 
once imposed upon these i^ublicans and sinners, and 
to insist upon greater care on the part of the 
guests, still statutes limiting the common-law lia- 

1 Spice V. Bacon, L. II. 2 Ex. Div. 4Goj IG A. L. J. 3S5. 



l/ility of iiinkot'pers sluuild not l)o extended to 
include proiierly not f;iirly williiu the terms of the 
acts. Where, for instance, ;is in llie New York 
act, money, jewels, or oi-iiaments are exempted, 
then ;ill pi'operfy of a ililTerent kind, inchidiiig all 
things useful and necessary for the comfort and 
convenience of the LTuest — all things usually carried 
and worn as part of the ordinary apparel and out- 
lit, as well as all things (U-dinarily used or suitable 
to be used by travelers in doors or out, are left in 
statu quo ante the statute." 

"And what may th;it be?" asked ]\Irs. L. 

"At the risk of the innkeeper." l 

"But would not a watch be considered a jewel 
or an ornament? " 

"The law is very watchful—" 

"Very watchful, indeed, when it has so many 
watch cases that it considers i)retty little Genevas 
neither jewels nor ornaments," murmured my wiio 
eotto voce. 

"The law is very watchful," I went on, "over 
benighted travelers, and has decided that it is not;2 
nor is a watch and chain,^ although, by the way, 
the Wisconsin judges have decided that im inn- 
keeper is not liable for the loss of a silver or a gold 
watch not handed over for safe keeping, their act 
speaking of articles of gold and silver manufacture.* 

iRemaly r. Lcland, 43 X. Y. 538; Kellogg y. Swecucy, I 
Laus. N. y. o'.)7. 

-liemaly v. Lelaml, supra. 

8 liurustciu i\ Sweeney, o5 N. Y. 271; Krolin v. Sweeney, 2 
Daly, X. Y. 200; Milfordr. Wesley, 1 Wilson, (Iml.) 110. 

4 Stewart v. Parsous, 21 Wis. 211. 






ill 12.5 

»^ I— 12.2 

;^ lis lllllio 


1.25 1.4 


^ 6" _ 






(716) 873-4503 





^ - 







The exemption is intendetl to api'ly only to such 
an amount of money and to such jewels and orn.N 
inents or valuables, as the landlord himself, if a 
jjrudent i)erson and traveling, would ])ut in a safo 
(if convenient) when retiring at night. No one, 
possessed of half a grain of that scarce commodity, 
common sense, would suppose that it was the inteU' 
tion of the act to exempt the hotel proprietors from 
their ol<l commondaw liability, unless the traveler 
enij)ti(Ml his j)ockets of every cent of money and 
deposited it, with his watch and pencil-case, in the 
safe, for perchance he might want these identical 
articles ere sweet sleep his eyelids closed.^ If, 
however, the innkeeper has complied with the 
re(piirements of the act, he is not liable for jewelry 
stolen from the bedroom, even though the guest 
has not been guilty of negligence, j)rovided he has 
had time and opj)ortunity to make the deposit.^ 
My old friend, Mrs. Ilosenplanter, was terribly 
unfortunate in this respect. In July, 18G3, sho 
and her worthy spouse were en route from Trenton 
Falls to Saratoga, and arrived at the Delavan 
House, Albany, at three in the afternoon. As din- 
ner was on the table, they at once dressed and went 
to dine. In about twenty minutes tliey returned 
to their room and found that in the meantime their 
trunk had been broken open and $oOO worth of 
jewelry taken out. My friend sued the i)roprietor, 
but the court ungallantly considered that she had 
hud suflicient time and o])portunity to make the dc- 

1 Giles V. Libbey. r<> Bar. 70. 

2 rwoseniilanter v. rtocssle, 51 X. Y. 262. 



po.sit, (thongli slie not been tliere an hour) and 
BO could not recover; allliouujh the judj^c admitted 
tliat no i)ers()n, under such circumstances, would 
have heen like!}' to have handed over his valuables 
to the inidveej)er, and that there must always be a 
brief period after the arrival of a guest before ho 
can make the deposit, and that during those golden 
moments the statute afforchs the pul)lican no pro- 
tection. And, by the way, I remember that in this 
case the court seemed to think that if a guest, on 
retiring for the night, removes a watch or jewelry 
from his person, or leaves money iu his ])Ockct, and 
neglects to deposit the same in the safe, the hotel- 
keeper, if he has complied ^v ith the act, is exempt 
from all liability in case of loss." ^ 

" You said," remarked Mrs. Lawyer, whom the 
mysteries of the toilet had revived, "you said that 
if the innkeeper put up his notice he would not be lia- 
ble to make good any loss of goods or property. Sure- 
ly, if a watch is neither an ornament nor a jewel, 
within the meaning of the act,^ it is goods or prop- 
erty, else it is not good for much." 

"It is very (piestionable whether the words 
'goods or |)roperty ' include the necessary baggage 
of a traveler, his watch or ])ersonal effects, or such 
money as a man in his travels usually carries with 
him; in fact, down South it was held that it did 
i.ot comprehend baggage." ^ 

"Well, what would you call baggage?" per* 

1 rtosenplantor r. Roesslc, 54 N. Y. 202; Bendetson v. Frenclj, 
40 N. Y. (listin'^uislicd. 
- 11 Can. Law Jour. X. S. 103. 
8 Topo V. Hull, 14 La. An. 324. 




5 I 


sistcd my wife. " It woiil«l be worth while knowing 
that, if an innkeeper is always responsible therefor." 

"Just wait until I comfortably settle myself, and 
I will dilate on that fruitful topic until you are sat- 

" What a base slanderer is Jules Verne," said my 
spouse, as she daintily nestled between the sheets. 

"What do you mean?" I asked. 

"Don't you remember that lie says that American 
beds rival marble or granite tables for hardness. I 
am sure ho never stopped at a good hotel." 

"Now for a Cau<lle lecture as to the bairsracje," 1 
said. " Impr'miis^ whatever a traveler on this sub- 
lunary planet takes with him for his own i)ersonal 
care and convenience, or even for his instruction 
and amusement,^ according to the habits and wants 
of the station of society to which he belongs, cither 
with reference to the immediate necessities or tho 
ultimate purpose of his wanderings, must be con- 
sidered personal luggage ; 2 and the rules of law 
governing the innkeeper's liability for the safety of 
a guest's baggage, arc the same as those which reg- 
ulate the resi)onsibility of common carriers as to a 
passenger's baggage.3 Articles of jewelry, such as 
you would usually wear, are baggage;* but not 
the jewels and regalia of a society.^ A watch,8 

1 Hawkins r. ITolTinan, Hill, 58G. 

2 Miicrow V. Cr. W. llw. L. K. G Q. B. 023. 
8 Wilkins v. Eiirlo, 13 Abb. N. Y. 190. 

^Drooko f. Pickwick, 4 Biug. 218; McGill u. Kowand, 3 
Pcnu. St. <15l. 

fi Nc^'il)s r. Bay State S. B. Co. 4 Bosw. 589. 

c Jones V. Voorhea, 10 Ohio, 115 ; Miss. C. llw. v. Kennedy, 
41 Miss. 471. 



except in Tennessee ;i finger-rings,2 Lul not silver 
s])Oons,^ come within the same category. One man 
Avas allowed to have two gold chains, two gold 
rings, a h)cket, and a silver pencil-case." * 

"■He ninst have been on his way to see Iiissweet- 
lieart, I fancy." 

"Gold s])ectacles are l)airgage;''^ so are oj)era 
glasses,^ a silver-inonnted pistcd, even for a Sonthern 
lady,''' duelling pistols,^ or a gun ; ^ but not a colt." i^ 

"A horse, then?" was facetiously queried. 

"Xot even a liobby-horse.i^ Brushes and razors, 
pens and ink, are baggage,!'- and perchance a j>re*. 
cnt.^^ So are the mainisciipts of a student ;!* but 
not the pencil sketches of an artist;!-^ on this latter 
point, however, the doctors of the law disagree.KI 
According to one judge, a concertina, a llute, or a 
fiddle might i)ass muster; but his fellows, liowcver 
much music they had in themselves, determined 

ir.onner r. ^Maxwell, Humphrey, 021. 
2McCormick v. Iliulson IJivor Rw. 4 E. D. Smith, 181. 
SGiles y. Fauntloroy, 13 Md. 12(J. 
4 Brutz V, G. T. 11. .'>2 U. C. Q. V>. CO. 

6 Ro II. IM. Wright, Newberry Admiralty; Sasscen v. Clark, 
37 Ga. 242. 

Toledo & "SVabash Riv. r. Hammond, 03 Ind. 370. 

7 Sasseen v. Chirk, 37 Ga. 242. 
8^Vood V. Devon, i;'> 111. 74(). 

Davis v. C. & S. Rw. 10 How. Rr. 330. 
lOGilesr. Fauntleroy, 13Md. 12<'.. 
UHudstcn V. Midland Rw. L. II. 4 Q. R. 300. 
1- Hawkins r. HoiTman, Hill, X. Y. Rep. 58!). 
13 Gt. W. Rev. V. Shepherd, 8 Ex. 38. Rut seo Bell v. Drew, 
4 R. D. Smith, 5'.). 
i» Hopkins v. AVestcott, 7 Am. Law. Rerr. x. S. 533. 
i^Mytton V. Midland Rw. 4 H. ^^ N. <il5. 
iCMacrow v. Gt. W. Rw. I.. R. G Q. B. G22, Coekburn, C. J 



not to be niovcd witli concord of sweet sounds, so 
Ihey out-voted their rausicid confrere.^ Shiikc- 
spcare saitli, ' Let no such man bo trusted ;' so, i)er- 
chance, wc must conclude tliat tliese judget^ woro 
astray in their law. In Pennsylvania, a journeyman 
carpenter may take his tools as baggagi',- lliough 
in Ontario he cannot,^ any more than a blacksmith 
can carry his forge, or a farmer his i)luw. Nor can 
:i merchant take his wares,'* nor a commercial his 
BampleSjS nor a banker his money,^ nor a lawyer his 
papers,'^ though an M. D. may take his surgical in- 
Htruments ;^ nor may a seamstress carry her sewing 
machine,^ nor — llark ! 

" AVlmt struin is tliis that comes into the room, 
At midniglit, as if yoiulur glcaminj^ li^l^t, 

Which seiiins to wan(h;r lilvo llic luoon, 

Woro scra])h-frcighto(l ? Kow it dies away 

111 a most fur-off troinhlo, and is still ; 
Leaviug a charmed silcuco. 

Hark ! one more dip of lingers in the wires ! 

One scaree-lieard murmur struggling into sound, 
And fading like a sunbeam from tlio ground, 

Or gilded vanes of dimly visioned spires ! " 

Here u fantasia on her nasal organ (which my 
wife always carried with her, despite the decisions 

1 Brutz V. G. T. llw. 32 U. 0. Q. P.. G(). 

2 Toner v. llildebrand, U Pa. St. 120. 
a r>iutz V. G. T. 11. supra. 

4 Gilox V. Shej)herd, 8 Ex. 00; Pardeo v. Drew, 25 Wend. 
451); Shaw v. G. T. Kw. 7 U. C. C. P. 4'J3. 

5 Belfast li. L. & C. PvW. v. Keys, Ho. Lords Cas. 550; 
Hawkins v. lIolTmau, G Hill, 580. 

c Phelps V. London &> N. W. P.w. 19 C. B. N. S. 32L 

7 Ibid. 

8 Giles V. Tauntleroy, 13 Md. 12G. 
» Brutz V. G. T. llw. supra. 



of anti-musical jucIgjos) vibrating unmistakably 
through the chamber, dispelled the idea of heavenly 
visitants, and informed me that my spouse had 
journeyed off to that land of Xod, from whose 
bourn no bauji'ai'e returns. Snorimjf, like vawn- 
ing, is infectious — sometimes; and this was one of 
the times. 

• • * # • 

" 'Tis sweet to sec the day dawn creeping grad- 
ual thro' the sky," and feel that there is for one yet 
a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the 
hands lo sleep; but even in the most fashionable 
hotel the hour will at length come when one must 
shake off dull sloth and burst the bonds of sleep, 
which at night are but as s})ider's webs, but in the 
mornini]: have become even fetters of brass: and 
that miserable hour (^ame in time to me. 

When I went down stairs to exjimine the regis- 
ter to SCO who had arrived durinij^ the ni<dit, I found 
some excitement existinix around the ollice. On in- 
quiry, (and who except a German savant ever beheld 
a row, small or great, without seeking to know the 
wherefore thereof,) I learned that a gent had the 
day before given the clerk a pocket-book to keep, 
and that it had been stolen out of the desk; the 
owner was demanding restitution, dollar for dollar 
and cent for cent, if not eye for eye and tooth for 
tooth. The landlord said that the man had been 
ncffliixcnt in not tellinti: the clerk there was money 
in the book. 

" No, I wasn't," was the reply, " there was only 
$13G iu it; and what but money would you expect 




to 1)0 in .1 pocket-book — a tooth-pick? — acic^ar? 
I know that in Iowa an innkeeper liad to casli up 
in a .similar case,^ and I'll make yon do it if there 
is law or jnsticc in this ])art of the American eagle's 

"In Kentncky," said a hy-stanlcr, who seemed 
to hail from that State, "an hotel-keeper was held 
liable for tlie loss by robbery of pocket money re- 
tained by a guest in his own possession.*' ^ 

"And in Maryland," said another Sontherner, 
"it has been decided that a traveler need not 
deposit in the oflicc safe any money reasonably 
necessary for his expenses that ho may have with 
him." 3 

"Yes," I said, "there are other cases, also, which 
appear to establish the point that a sojourner at an 
hotel may keep in his pocket or in his room money 
enough to pay his daily way, and that if his i)urso 
be surreptitiously disposed of, the landlord must 
make good his loss;* yet still there is a very lato 
New York decision, wliere my friend Hyatt found 
to his cost, that where a landlord provides a safe,' 
and puts nji the usual notices about it, and the vis- 
itor chooses not to place his money in it, the pro- 
prietor of the establishment is not responsible for 
the loss of any of the cash, not even for what would 


iShoccraft v. Bailey, 25 Iowa, C53. 

2 Wcisciugcr v. Taylor, 1 Bush, 275. 

^Maltby v. Chapman, 25 Md. 307; a decision under Md. 
Code, art. 70, sees. 5, G. 

4 Taylor i\ Monnot, 4 Duer, (N". Y.) IIG; Van Wyck v. How- 
ard, 12 How. (N. Y.) Pr. U7; Stanton v. Leland,4E. D. Smith, 
(N. v.) 88; Simon v. Miller, 7 La. An. 3G0. 




1)C roquired for the guest's ordinary traveling ex- 
])en^es." 1 

"You speak of money enough for one*s daily 
wants and traveling expenses being all that for 
which ail innkeeper is liahle," said a gentleman 
who had hitherto been a (piiet listener. 

"Well, sir, I do not like; to sj»eak <logmatically, 
but it !-eeins that the; tendency of some modern de- 
cisions is to h(»l«l that the innkeeper !-houl<l not bo 
liable for any money bev«»nd that amount, even 
though ]iut in a safe, unless a special contract has 
been ma<le, or it has been actually delivered to the 
j)roi)rietor or liis servant, with notice not only of 
the kind of property it was, but also of the amount. 
It is not siiflicient to mark a ])ackage 'money,' for 
it is argued that It would be highly unjust, and not 
founded upon any principle on which an imdvcep- 
cr's liability rests, for a traveler to ])ring into an 
inn, unobserved, any amount of valuables, without 
notice to the innkeeper, and hold him rcsponsil)le 
for their safe keeping. There shouM bo a restric- 
tion or qualification of such liability, if it exists; 
and that must be a warning to the innkeeper of the 
extra ri>k he is about to run.'^ Dut the Court of 
A})peals in Xew York State takes a <lii'fereFit view, 
and holds that if one complies with tiie law, and 
deposits his money in the safe, the innkeeper is lia- 
ble for the full amount, irrespective of the question 
wlu Lhcr or not it was all required for the purposes 
of the journey.2 

1 Hyatt V. Tayloi-, 51 Barb. N. Y. G32; 43 N. Y. 259. 

2 Wilkins t'. Earle, 18 Abb. N. Y. I'JO. 
8 Wilkins V. Eurle, 44 N. Y. 172. 





"And, I might Jidd," said my interlocutor, " tlio 
celebrated Story made no exception, and seemed to 
consider it one of the A \i C prin(;i|»les of law that 
an innkeeper is liable for the loss of the money of 
liis guest, stolen from his room, as well as for his 
goods and chattels, and that such liability extends 
to all the money of the guest placed within the inn, 
and is not conlined to .such sums only as are neces- 
siny and designed for ordinary traveling expenses.l 
Then, sir, our great Chancellor Kent lays it down 
as admitting of no ])eradventure, that an innkeeper 
is bound absolutely to kec]) safe the property of his 
guest within the inn, whether he knows of it or not, 
and that his responsibility extends to all his guest's 
servants, and to all the goods, chattels, and mt)iu*ys 
of the guest, their safe custody being part of tiie 
contract to feed and lodge for a suitable reward.^ 
If you are not satisfied with the words of these men 
— alike the ])ride and tlie ornament of America — 
let us cross the ocean and hear what Sir Wm. 
Blackstone saith ; he speaketh after this wise : that 
an innkee[)er's lU'gligence in suffering a robbery uf 
Lis guest is an implied consent to the robbery, and 
he must make good the loss.*^ Then Lord Tenter- 
den held that there was no distinction between 
money and goods; and all the other judges of tho 
court said 'amen.' "* 

" Excuse my interru2)ting you in your interesting 
remarks," said I. 

1 Story's Commentarios, sec. 481. 

2 Comineutaries, sue. 470. 
8 1 Black. Cum. 430. 

* Keut r. Shuckard, 2 B. & Ad. 803. 




"Quite excusable, Bir, fori am only speaking 
in llie cause of riujlit, and because I ihink Honio 
judges are inclined to cut loose from the safe moor- 
ings of the old common huv, rendered di-ar to us Ijy 
the adjudications of the learned men of llie liencli 
for generations J ast, hoth iu tlie old and new 
worlds; and 1 am satislicd that a contrary doctrine 
will be terril»le in its clfccts iu this great commer- 
ci.d community of ours, where our business men 
.sjiend so large a jjortion (»f their time at, inns in 
l»ursuit of their calling.^ But what were you going 
to say?" 

'•Simi>ly," I remarked, "that in the case before 
Tenterden the amount lost was only £o(), and it was 
(stated to have been ke[)t to meet daily expenses 
only, lie said he could see no distinction in this re- 
spect between an innkeeper and a carrier; and 
there arc many cases to the effect that a carrier will 
not be responsible for any money of a passenger 
except what is needful for traveling purposes and 
personid use,- unless the loss was occasioned by tho 
gross neMisjrence of the carrier." 

"Well, other English judges have likewise held 
that an innkeeper's liability is not restricted merely 
to the guests' travelling exiKmses;**^ and if we re- 
cross the mighty ocean we Hi: I our ju«]ges in firm 
accord with their confreres." * 

1 Per ^IcCann, J., Wilkina v. Earle. 

" Orange Co. Dank v. lirown, D Wend. 8r>; "Weed v. Saratoga 
& Sell. llw. I'J Yv'end. D21 ; lied, ou liailways, vol. 2, pp. 
Co, 58. 

" Coggs V. Barnard, 1 Sm. Lcadin<T Cases, r.o:) ; I^uo v. 
Cotton, 12 INIod. 487; Wharton on luukocperd, 07. 

* Colo V. Goodwin, 19 AVend. 




y M 





"But,'' I s.i'kI, "Imt in one caso tlie nmonnt 
was oiilv two limnlrc'il dollars,^ :ni<l in another it 
was l)Ut twcntv-Iivo dollars.^ And in sti 1 another 
caso dccidftl, as yon say, altiiDni^h tlio casli lost was 
nioro than snfl'n'icnt to pay tlio expenses of the man 
from wliom it was taken, still it was not liis own; 
lie merely held it to ]»ay others, who were stojipini^ at 
tho samo honse, and were witnesst^s in a snit which 
iho money-holder was snperintendini^, or to j)ay 


len* expenses a 



le iim 


"On tho other hand," said tho defender of tho 
rii^hts of the j>eoj)le, '' in a C'alil'ornia hotel there 
was this notice: 'Dc^posit your valuables and 
money in tho safe at tho ollieo ; ' and a guest .n,c- 
cordiii'jlv dc'posited a larLjc amount of I'old dust 
and coin, which the pro[)rietor received without 
objection. Afterwards, tho clerk was knocked 
down and the safe rohhed, it not being locked, and 
tho ])ublican was heM liable for tho whole amount.'* 
And where a man had stolen from his room a pack- 
age of jewelry, Avliich the clerk had ti)ld him would 
bo quite safe tlu're, the host was held liable, even 
in New York State.^ And so, in Kentucky, where 
a safe was robbed bv a discharixcd clerk, although 
in this last caso the innkeeper had told the guest 
that he would not be responsible for any money put 
in it.*^ It seems to me to be somewhat absurd that 

iQuintiu r. Courtney, Hay. (N". C.) 41. 

2 Giles V. Libby, '.\:> liarb. 70. 

3 rierksliiro W- ollcu Co. v. PnK'tor, 7 Cusli. 417. 

4 rinkcrtou r. AVoochvard, .'>.'» Cal. i3o7. 
''Ijundeton r. Froncli, 41 Ilarb. .1. 

tt Woodward v. lUrd, 4 liusli. (Ky . ) 510. 


the l:i\v sliouM say that unless you deposit your 
inoiicy in i\n) hotel safo tlio i)r()j)ric'tor will not 1)C 
lialilo for its loss, and tlion when you liavc j)laced 
it ill tho ahsoluto and innii('diat(! control of iho inn- 
kc'OjK'r, and, j)orhaps, iiis dishonest servant, you 
biiouid bo met tho next day, when asking for your 
own, by the smirking and bowing proj)rietor, re- 
marking, smivlfer in modo : 'True, sir you gave 
mo twentv thousand dollars for safe-kee]>in'^% and I 

« A 

jnit it in my safo; but, like all riches, it has taken 
to itself wings and flown away. However, my dear 
Fir, here are one hundred dollars to pay your expen- 
ses, and take you comfortably to your journey's 

*■ There ap])ears to be something to be said on 
both sides," I remarked, wearying of the discussion 
from which all others, save my adversary and my- 
self, had lone; since iled ; for when the lime comes 




to b 



or my luneral exj)ensesto be meurrcMi, no one wi 
be able (whatever my readers may think) to say of 
Uie, as they did of Lord Mucaulay, 

'Tlicro was no pain liko silence, no constraint 
So dull as unanimity, lie breatiicd 
An atmospluMO (if arijnmcnt, iu>r slirnnk 
From niakinf,', wlxre lie could nut lind, excuso 
For controversial liulit.' " 

"But I have the best of it," said my antagonist. 
*'It is :i case of New York biate, like Athanasius, 
contra 7nundutn?^ 

"At all events, you will agree with me tliat an 
innkeeper will not be liable for loss of Ins guest's 
money when lie has intrusted it to the cure of some 







one else on the premises in whom lie reposes confi* 
dencc," ^ I replied. 

"Certainly; and I remember a case where a man 
gave a bag of money to the step-dangliter of an 
innkeei)er with whom he was particularly intimate, 
havinGT courted her in marriaire, and the bau:huvini» 
disappeared, the owner tiiereof got nothing.'^ And 
I trust that you will not deny that tlie iimkeeper is 
responsible, notwithstanding any notices up about 
depositing in the safe, if the guest has not had time 
to get his valuables put in there after his arrival." ^ 

" Oh, yes ; and he is liable for their loss after the 
visitor has taken them out preparatory to his de- 
parture." * 

Here two bows were exchanrzed, two backs 

turned, and four lei^s walked off. 


illouser V. Tulley, 02 Pa. St. 92. 
2 Sneidor v. Geiss, 1 Yoates, 24. 

SEoseuplauteri;. Iwocsole, 54 N. Y. 202; Bendetson v. French, 
40 N. Y. 
4 Stanton v. Leland, 4 E. D. Smith, 88. 



After a time, business called me in the direction 
in -which the "tide of empire rolls," and we took n 
lung, but by no means tedious or monotonous jour«. 
ney, along that metal ribbon which, stretching from 
ocean to ocean, unites the Atlantic to the Pacific. 
The train was well supplied witli saloon cars, bal- 
cony cars, restaurants, smoking cars, palace cars, 
and sleeping cars. Wo encountered none of tho 
adventures so graphically described by tho writer 
of the veracious history of Phineas Fogg; no herd 
of ten thousand buffaloes delayed, no daring band 
of Sioux attacked, our train; wc had neither duel 
nor flying leap over bridges, crashing down into 
abysmal depths. We ate, we drank, wc slept, we 
talked, wc gazed ; wc gazed, we talked, we slept, 
we drank, we ate ; and that was all. 

At last we reached the wondrous " City of the 
West," and beheld the mighty Avaters of the Pacific 
throbbing upon the shores and along the piers of 
San Francisco. To the Palace Hotel we drove, and 
there wo took up our quarters, glad enough to rest 
our brains, dizzied and dazed with our flight across 
the continent. 

Refreshed by the quiet rest and needful repose 
of a long night's sleep, my wife insisted upon tak- 
ing Ji stroll through the magnificent hotel in which 
we were now quartered. 

». [97 3 



! \ 

" If there was a, railway running along all tlio 
passages and corridors wo might manage to get 
round tlic Palace Hotel in a morning," I said, "but 
Bteam has not yet been introduced for that purpose. 
To be sure, there is tlio pneumatic tube, but that 
is not quite largo enough unless you are willing to 
go without a jiannier." 

"How large is the house?" asked JNIrs. Lawyer. 

"Why, it is three hundred and fifty feet long by 
two hundred and seventy-five broad." 

"Let us hurry, then ; if it is so huge we have no 
time to lose," was the brave response. 

"Well, here's an elevator," I remarked. 

We stepped into one of tlio four passenger 
elevators, which are run by hydraulic power. Tlio 
motion was almost imperceptible, and rapid as the 
downward flight of a swallow. The young gent in 
charge told us that it could run from bottom to top 
and back again to bottom, through the whole seven 
stories of the house, in ten seconds. 

On arriving on the ground floor we first inspected 
the grand court and the rooms on either side, and 
then turned into one of the long corridors, from 
which my wife insisted upon visiting the handsome 
stores, opening off with tlieir tempting wares. I left 
her making ])urcliases while I entered the barber's 
saloon, and in one of the easiest of patent adjustible 
chairs, by the deftest of tonsors, with the keenest 
of razors, allowed myself to be shaved ; for Mrs. L. 
loved not to see a man with his nose i)rojecting 
over a cascade of hair, and desired that my face 
might preserve its human outline, instead of pre- 



sontinjx — <'^s sl^o sarcastically remarked — no cllstlnc- 
tion from the pliysiogiiomy of a bearded owl or a 
Barbary ape. 

No fear of losin<x nose or cheek while in that 
place. But, after all, it is not a sublime attitude 
for a man to sit, with lathered chin, thrown back- 
ward, and have his nose made a handle of. To be 
shaved, however, is the fashion of American respect- 
ability, and it is astonishing how gravely men look 
at each other M'hen they are all in the fashion. 
For the benefit of those unfortunates who get 
gashed betimes beneath the operator's hand, I 
would say, that if a barber attempts to shave you 
he must possess tlio necessary education and skill, 
and show the diligence of an expert in that line, 
otherwise he will be liable for damaGres sustained.! 
Of course if you suffer an inexperienced volunteer 
to practice upon your chin and you come to grief, 
you have no remedy, unless the amateur is guilty of 
gross negligence ; but if one unskilled in the art 
pushes himself forward and seizes you by the nasal 
projection, to the exclusion of a ])rofessional, ho is 
expected to use the skill usually possessed by a 
master of the art.^ In Blinois, it would seem that 
if one renders his services free, gratis, and for 
nothing, he will be only liable for gross negligence \^ 
but the point appears open to argunnnt.^ I i)re- 
Slime that no one would be so foolish as to suppose 
that a professor of the tonsorial art is bound to 

1 ^Yha^ton on Xoglif];pnco, socs. TO, 730. 

2AVliartoii on Ncj^. soo. 7uJ; Hood v. Crimes, 13 li. Mon. 188, 

8 ratchoy V. AVest, 23 111. .'385. 

* Wharton on Negligence, sees. 437, Gil. 




attend to your hirsiito appendages willy-nilly ; but 
when ho does take you in hand ho must carry the 
operation through without any sins of omission or 

When I rejoined my wife, she asked to descend 
into the basement regions, so down wo went, and 
found bath-rooms and laundry-rooms, wine-rooms, 
pantries, etc., in well nigh endless succession. 

"How many napkins do you use a day?" in- 
quired Mrs. L. of the individual whoso duty it waa 
to reside in a region of perpetual steam and damp. 

"About three thousand," was the response ; " and 
four hundred table-cloths, if people are reasonably 

" I would like some things washed ; how soon 
could you do them ? " asked my wife. 

"If they are large articles, you can have them 
back in your room in fifteen minutes; if small, iu 
seven minutes." 

"That's rather quick," I remarked. 

" Well, sir, I have known a man to have his shirt 
washed while taking a bath ; and a handkerchief, 
sent down the tube dirty, was returned clean during 
the time ho was arranging his neck-tie, or parting 
his back hair." 

On we went, to the pantries, and saw the thou- 
sands and tens of thousands of pieces of china and 
crockery, glass and cutlery. 

"A breakage occasionally would not matter 
much, among so many thousands of pieces," I re- 

1 "NVliarton on Negligence, sec. 731. 



"It would TUfittcr more to the man who broke 
the article than to the hotel proprietor, I caleulate," 
responded the man in charge of this legion of 
crockery and glassware. 

*' Well, sir, that depends on how the breakage 
occurred. I take it that a guest at an hotel is, with 
respect to tli(; tilings tliat he uses, in tlie same 
position as if he hired tliem — in fact he does hire 
them; audit is well settled that every hirer of a 
chattel is bound to use the thini; let to him in a 
pro})er and reasonable manner, to take the same 
care of it that a i)rudent and cautious man ordina- 
rily takes of his own property, and to return it to 
the owner at the i)roper time, in as good condition 
as it w:is in when lie got it, subject only to deteri- 
oration produced by ordintiry wear and tear, and 
reasonable use, and injuries caused by accidents 
which have happened without any default or 
neglect on the part of the hirer.^ The owner must 
stand to all the ordinary risks to which the chattel 
is naturally liable, but not to the risks occasioned 
by negligence or want of ordinary care on the part 
of the hirer.2 In fact, as a late writer has very 
well put it, the hirer of a chattel is in no sense an 
insurer, nor is he liable for culpa Icvif^suiKi^ or that 
apocryphal phrase of inilnitesinial negligence which 
stands in antithesis to the dlligcntia dilU/entlsslnia 
which the hiw does not, as a continuous service, 


1 Jones on Bailments, 88. 

2 Addison on Contracts, 415. 

• Wliartoil on Negligence, sec. 713. 





As I paused, the man hastily remarked that lio 
liad no time to stop and talk, and my wife, fearing 
that the subterranean air was affecling my brain, 
said tliat we had better go up stairs ; so, like the 
youtli with the strange device, " Excelsior" was our 

" Take that box of matches," said Mrs. Lawyer. 
"We may want them when off picnicking." 

" We had better not. They are left there for 
the i)uri)ose of lighting cigars, and can only be 
taken in a limited manner. Taking them by the 
boxful would be larceny, if the intent is felonious, 'i 
I returned, 

" What a terrible place for a fire ! " suggested my 

" Yes," I replied. " No fire would have the 
eliixhtest chance here. What with the huGfc reser- 
Voir supplied by artesian wx'lls, the seven tanks on 
the roof, the three large steam fire-])umps, the 
watchmen going their constant rounds, and the 
thermostats in every room in the hotel, (which, 
when the temperature is raised to 120°, cause a bell 
to be rung continuously in the office, and show the 
number of the room affected in the annunciator) a 
spark could scarce develop itself into a blaze before 
its discovery." 

"Well, but," urged Mrs. Sawyer, "suppose, 
notwithstanding these precautions, a fire did take 
place, and our baggage "was destroyed, would the 
landlord have to pay for it?" 

" I can only say, my dear, that on the other side 

iMitclium V. The State, 45 Ala. 29. 



of tlic continent, in the State of Vermont, where a 
man sued to recover tlie value of a span of liorses, 
a set of double harness, two horse-blankets, and 
two halters, it M'as decided by the court that an 
liotel-keeper is not liable for property lost by fire 
where the conllagration is occasioned by unavoida- 
ble casualty or superior force, without any negli- 
gence on his })art or that of his servants.^ An Eng- 
lish decision tends in tlie same direction ;2 .and in 
MicluLjan it was held that lie was not liable for the 
horses and wagons of a guest, burned in a barn, 
without liis neuflii'ence.'^ J>ut the English decision 
has been questioned both here and there,* and in 
New York it was considered that the liability of a 
publican extended to the loss of goods by fire, 
(though the cause of it was unknown) provided 
that the guest is free from all blame in the matter.^ 
In that State they have a law exempting landlords 
from liability for the loss by fire of a guest's goods 
in a barn or outhouse, if it is shown that the dam- 
age is the w^ork of an incendiary, and occurred 
without negligence on their part; but the burden of 
proving tliis is, of course, upon the innkeeper,'^ 
and my own humble opinion is that an innkeeper 
is liable for all such losses unless they are caused 
by a public enemy, or an act of God, (lightning, 

1 Merrill v. Clagliorn, 23 Vt. 177; also Vanco v. Throckmor* 
ton, 5r>ush. (Ky.)41. 
-Dawson v. Chamney, 5 Q. P.. (N. S.) 1G4. 
8 Cutler V. Bonney, 30 :Mich. 25!). 

■* Mateer y. Brown, 1 Cal. 22j; Wharton on Neg. p. 111. 
e Ilulett V. Swift, 33 N. Y. 571. 
CFaucott V. NichoUs, G4 N. Y. 377. 


rini:, rats, and bui:glar3. 



or an earthquake) or tbo owner lias been negli- 

# # # # « 

*'Ileigli-ho!" sighed my wife, as, exhansterl with 
her h)ng tramp througli tiic mammoth liouse, yhe 
sank into a hiYurious arm-(;hair on our return to 
our own apartment, preparatory to an excursion 
tlirough the city. "Look at lliat liorrid little 
thing!" she exclaimed the next instant, and start- 
ing up with enough vehemence to frighten a lion, 
she scared away a little mouse that had been nil> 
bling at her reticule. " The little wretch! see how 
it has S])oilt my nice new satchel ! It must have 
been the cakes inside. Can I make the landlord 
give me a new one?' she avariciously added. 

" Humph ! I wish that some one had asked mo 
that question who could afford to ])ay me for a 
carefully considered oi)inion," I replied. 

" Why can't you tell me? " 

"Because 1 scarcely know what to say. The 
point seems open to argument. I don't remember 
any case where the depredations of mice have occu- 
pied the attention of a court of law, although 
there liave been several decisions on the subject of 

"Well, and what ■were they?" exclaimed my 
wife, impatiently. "That a man can keep the 
nasty things in his liouse, and let them damage the 
property of his guests, and not pay for them ? " 

" In one case where rats gna^vt•tl a hole in the 
bottom of a boat, and the water, coming in at the 

iMateer v. Brown, 1 Cal. 221. 



lo.'ik, (Inmncjorl c^oorls on hoard, the owner of tho 
Vessel was held liable for llie performance of tlioso 
rodents;^ and in anotlier casi', earriers were lield 
responsible for their depredations on hoard a sliip, 
althonj^li there were cats and nianujooses on bo.'ird, 
and the owners had availed themselves of the vaU 
nahle services of the venerable sire of the ])retty 
rat-cateher's dauirhter of PaddiiiL'ton Green." ^ 

" I>ut yon stupid man, wc are not on board ship," 
said my amiable and aceomplislie<l spouse. 

"And," I rei>lied, "that is exactly where tho 
difficulty arises; for where a, man had a water-tank 
on the r. of of liis liouse, and the rats gnawed 
through .'I leaden i)i[)e so that water trickled down 
and injured tho goods of another fellow on tho 
ground floor, the court lield that tho owner of the 
establishment, who occupied the npper flat, was not 
responsible — and Chief Baron Kelly remarked that 
it was absurd to suppose that a duty lay on tho 
landlord to exclude the possibility of tho entrance 
of rats from without."'^ 

"That seems a, very different view from that 
taken by the judges in ti\e other cases," remarked 
Mrs. L. 

"Yes; but the Chief Baron said that the case of 
a ship was wholly different — that it might be possi- 
ble to insure freedom from rats in a ship, but that 
it was impossible to say that tiiis could bo done 
with respect to warehouses generally,* and another 

1 Dale u. Hall, IWils. 281. 

2 Kay V. AVhoeler, L. K. 2 C. T. 302. 
sCarstaira v. Taylor, Law R. G Ex. 217. 
* Carstairs v. Taylor, supra. 


rmr,, rats, axd burglars. 

f i 

jiulge remarked tliat a landlord could not be con- 
Bidered neLjjligent if lie omitted taking moans to get 
rid of these pesls till there was reason to yupposc 
they were in the building." ^ 

"Xever mind what others considered and thouirht 
and said — what do you think?" 

"I think that perhaps the rule would apply that 
if a man permits an animal to remain in his posses- 
sion he becomes lialdo for the mischief it com- 
mits." 2 

"Do you know what I think?" queried my wife. 

"No, my dear." 

" That we had better go to lunch." 

TT T? TT TT TT '^r 

As we were cpiietly sleeping the sleep of the wea<» 
ried just that night, I was aroused by a noise at our 
window. In a moment or two it was opened, and 
then a man stealthily entered the room. I had not 
time to ask him what he wanted, for at the first 
sound of my voice he was off as quickly as if ho 
had heard the click of a j^istol. I made the win-, 
dow secure, and again entered dream-land. In tho 
morning, as we donned the attire which Adam's 
transgression has rendered necessary, my Avife and 
myself conversed on the subject of the liability of 
an hotel-keeper for losses occurring to his guests 
from burglary. 

" In Vermont, my dear," I said, " it has been held 
that if the proprietor could show that the burglari- 
ous entry was under circumstances that absolved 

iRncl. per Bramwell, J. 

2 McKomo V. Word, 5 Car. & P. 1. 




liim from all blaine, he woiiM not bo liabU*.^ But 
that doctriiU' is not now f (j1 lowed ." - 

*' An«l what <lo the indices now sav? " 

"It was decided in this sunset State that althouujh 
the i)oint may he sofuewhat unsettled, yet still the 
true idea is to hold that innkei'[)ers, like common 
carriers, arc insurers of the property committed 
to their charge, and arc houn*! to make restitution 
for any injury or loss not caused hy the act of the 
Almi<3dity, nor hy a common enemy, nor by the 
neglect or default of the owner."^ 

A fresh to])ic of conversation lierc suggesting 
itself to the active brain of Mrs. L., she launched 
out upon it con aniore, 

I found afterwards that I had not been the only 
object of the burglar's attentions, for as I was saun- 
teriuGC alonuj one of the corridors of the hotel I was 
accosted thus : 

"I say, you walking digest of the law of inns 
and innkeepers, what's the consequence if a guest 
is a little careless and loses his valuables?" 

This question was familiarly i)ut to me (that is, 
put in a way that evinced no intention on the part 
of the speaker of paying for the information sought) 
by an old friend, with whom I occasionally con- 
versed, on legal topics, and from whom carelessness 
and negligence were as inseparable as Apollo and 

iMcDaniels v. Robinson, 20 Vt. 311; Morse >;. Slice, 1 Vent. 
1(K), 2;'.8. 

2Mateer u. Brown, 1 221; Norcross v. Xorcross, 53 Me. 
1G3; Pinkerton v. Woodward, 33 Cal 557. 

3 ^lateer v. Brown, supra. See, also, Mason v. Thompsoo, 9 
Pick. 284. 






liis golden bow, or Orplicus and IiIm tuneful lyn't, 

"The sumo old Story, to whom I have often 
alluded in my j)rofe.ssion:d talks witli you, Kays l 
that nei^ligonco may be ordinary, or less than ordin. 
ary, or more than ordinary; and that ordinary 
negligence niay be deliiUMl to be want of ordinary 
diligence, and gross negligence to be want of slight 
diligence. Although some English judges liavo 
said that they can sec no differeuce between negli- 
gence and gross negligence ; that it is the sumo 
thing with the addition of a vituperative epithet.3 
Of what kind of negligence have you been guilty, 
and what has happened ?" 

*'Idid not say that I had been doing anything. 
But suppose that a fellow had some money in his 
portmimteau and left it in the hail of the hotel with 
the other baggage, and didn't say anything about 
it to the landlord, and it disappeared." 

" Well, sir, in such a case I should say that a 
jury would bo warranted in finding that the indi^ 
vidual referred to liad been guilty of gross negli- 
gence, and that the hotel-keeper v/as exonerated 
through his imprudence in thus exposing his goods 
to peril." 3 

" I had some such idea floating through my own 

'' 'Tis a pity that your brain is in such a liquid 
state. I remember a case of a man of the name of 
Armistead, a commercial traveler, who, while at an 

1 Story on Bailments, sec. 17. 

2Rolfo, IJ. in Wilson v. Brett, 11 M. & W, 110: Austin v. 
Manchester &c. Railway, 10 C. B. 474. 
3 Fowler y. Dorlon, 24 Barb. 384. 




hotel, placed his box in ilu> corninerciul room, as 
was the wont of thosn wln> visiteil the house. The 
liox had money in it, and was left there fur three 
ni^dits. Twiee or thriee, in the jiresenee of several 
on-lookers, Arniistead openccl tlu! trunk an<l count- 
ed his chaniie. Thc^ lock was so \)m\ that any one 
could unfiisten it without a key by simply pushin;^ 
back the holt. The money leaked away mvsteri- 
ously, and Armistead sued the lamUord to recover 
it, but the jii<lge who tried the case told the jury 
that uross iieixliLTence on tlie i)art of the Lcuest would 
relieve the host from his common-law liability; and 
when the matter came up ])efore the court it was 
lield that tiie jury had done rii^ht in iindini^ the 
traveler had been tjcuilty of such t'ross ncLjliLrencc 
as to excuse his landlord from liability for the 
money. Lord Campbell remarked that the judi^e 
would have been astray had he sai<l that in all 
cases a box should be taken to the guest's bedroom, 
and he doubted whether, in order to absolve the 
innkeeper, there must be crassa ncfjlUjcutla oa the 
part of the guest." ^ 

"That's the law, is it?" 

" A still more recent case settled the question as 
to the amount of neijrliijcence that would bind the 
owner of the goods. In deciding it, Earle, J., said 
that ho thou!]jht that the rule of law resultimx from 
all the authorities was, that in a case like the one 
he was considering the goods always remained 
under the charge of the innkeeper and the protection 
of the inn, so as to make the landlord liable as for 

1 Armistead v. White, 29 Law J. Q. B. 521. 






breach of duty, unless the negligence of the guest 
occasions the loss, in such a way as that it would 
not have happened if the guest had used the ordi- 
nary care that a prudent man might reasonably 
have been expected to take under the circumstan- 
ces ; 1 and the same rule seems to hold good on this 
side of tlie Atlantic." ^ 

*'If a friend bags your baggage," inquired the 
searcher after clieap knowledge, " at an hotel, and 
marches off with it, could you compel the proprie- 
tor of the establisl.nient to make good your loss?" 

" It was decided not, in Illinois, where one had 
allowed his ciiuni to exercise acts of ownership over 
Ijis trunk; 3 and long ago it was held, in the old 
land, that if a landlord tells a guest, on his arrival, 
that lie has no room, the house being full, and his 
words are veritable truth, and yet the guest insists 
upon being admitted, saying that he will shift for 
himself, or if he go and share the ai^artment of 
another, without the consent of the proprietor or 
his servants, the host is not responsible for his 
traps, unless the sufferer can show that the goods 
were actually stolen or lost through the negligence 
of the innkeeper or his servants.^ But an inn- 
keeper can't shirk his liability because his house is 
full of parcels, if the owner is stojiping at the 
house." 5 

iCashill V. AVright, G El. & B. 898. 

" Chamberlain v. Mastersou, 2G Ala. 371 ; Iladley v. Upsliaw, 
27 Tex. 517; Profiles v. Hall, 11 La. An. 324. 
3Kelsey v. Berry, 42 111. 409; Cayle's Case, 8 Coke, 32. 
4 1 Andcss. 29. 
c Bennett v. Mellor, 5 T. U. 273. 



"To tell you, then, what really did happen to 
me : I jxot in hero late last nii^ht, and after enterincj 

CD O ' O 

my name at the oflice, i)ulled out my purse and 
paid the cabby; I then went to my room, and being 
very tired, tumbled out of my clothes as rajtidly as 
nature and art would permit me, put them on a 
chair near the bed, and Avas soon among tlie flowery 
meads of dream-land. This morning', lo and behold ! 
the purse which I had left in my pocket was gone, 
Bome villain having, while I slept, entered the room 
by the door, which I had omitted to fasten. Now, 
then, what are my rights and remedies in the 
premises?" asked my friend. 

"In the days when the Virgin Queen, Elizabeth, 
ruled the benighted land of our ancestors, Jind 
trifled with the affections of subject, prince, king, 
czar, and Caesar, the v>^hole Court of Queen's Bench 
decided that an innkeeper was bound by law to 
keep the goods and chattels of Ids guests, without 
any stealing or purloining, and that it was no ex- 
cuse for him to say that he delivered to the guest 
the key of his bed-room, and that he (the guest) had 
left the door open, (that is, I presume, unlocked) ;l 
for that he, the landlord, is responsible fur their 
safety, even in the bed-room, and that even though 
the poor publican never knew that his visitor had 
any proi)erty with him, and was entirely ignorant of 
the depredation. Unless, indeed, the thief was the 
guest's servant or friend, or the projirietor had rc« 
quired the guest to place his goods in a particular 
chamber, under lock and key, saying that then ho 

1 Erie, J., in Casliill r. Wriqfht, G El. & 13. 81)5. 





i' '•; 

t I 

ill I II 
\\ 111 

i : ill 



Would warrant their safety, otherwise not, and tho 
man had foolishly neglected the advice."^ 

"Ah, well! then I am all riglit." 

"Kindly refrain from forming a deQnito opinion 
until you arc in full possession of the who/e law on 
the subject. I know that it has been lield again 
and again, in England, that a guest is not bound to 
either fasten or lock his dejor.^ In a very late case 
Lord Ciiancellor Cairns remarked tliat he would bo 
Borry to s.iy any single word implying that there is 
any rule of law as to this;*^ and our own authori- 
ties seem to be in unison with the Encijlish decis- 
i(ms.'^ But i)erhaps you may have heard the re- 
mark that circumstances alter cases." 

"I must confess the maxim has a v\n<x not alto- 
gether novel to my ears." 

"I may say that it is particularly true in legal 
matters; and sometimes it is incumbent on a guest 
to fasten his door.^ For example, a commercial 
traveler obtained a private room wherein to exhibit 
his goods to his customers. Clements, the landlord, 
told him to lock the door. This the man neglected 
to do, although while showing his samples a stranger 
had twice popped his phiz into the room. The court 
considered that the traveler by his own act had aU 
solved Clements from his liability, and that he must 
bear his loss as philosophically as possible." <^ 

1 Caylo'rt Case, 8 Coke, 32. 

-Mitchell V. Wooa.s, IG L. T. Kep. X. S. GTC; Filipdurko v 
Merry wcuthcr, i: Tost. & F. 2S5. 
sSpico V. Bacon, 10 Alb. L. J. 38G. 
'•Classen v. Leopold, 2 Sweeney, (N". Y.) 705 
c r>aaaenberg i\ Denuer, 1 Hilt. (X. Y.) 81. 
oUurgesd v. Clements, 4 Moore & S. oOG. 



"Did tliG occupants of the bench state the why 


and tlie wherefore ? 

"Yes; and it was partly on the ground that the 
Iiotcl-keeper was not bound to extend the same pro- 
tection to goods pLaced in a room for tlie purposes 
of trade as to those in an ordinary chamber. (You 
know tlie liability is only as to baggage; it extends 
not to merchandise.)! And further, that eircumstan- 
ccs of suspicion had arisen which sIkuM have put the 
guest on his guard; that after tlie vision of the 
strange head it became his duty, in whatever room 
he might be, to use at least ordinary diligence, and 
particularly so as he was occupying the apartment 
for a special purpose. For though, in general, a 
traveler who resorts to an inn may rest upon the 
2)rotection which the law casts around him, yet, if 
circumstances of suspicion arise, he must exercise 
at least ordinary care." 2 

"But," said my companion, "I had no head to 
warn me — not even Banquo-likc did any 'horrible 
shadow, unreal mockery' appear, to pkice me on 
niy guard." 

"A case occurred at Bristol, in England, which 
may, perchance, put the matter to you in a clear 
liglit. A man of foreign extraction, Oppenheim 
by name, went to the White Lion Hotel. While 
in a public room he took from his i)ocket a canvas 
bag, containing twenty-two g(jld sovereigns, some 
silver, and a £') note, and extracted therefrom a 
tanner — " 




1 , 

iPettigrow v. Barnum, 11 Md. 431; Giles v. Fauntleroy, 13 
Md. 12(3. 
2 Burgess v. Clcmcuts, supra. 

I r e< 






*=A what?" 

" A six-penny bit — to jiay for some stamps. 
Shortly afterwards lie retired for the night to a 
room in an upper story; the door had both lock 
and bolt ; the window looked on to a balcony. The 
chambermaid told him that the window was open, 
but said nothing about the door. He closed the 
latter, but did not lock it or bolt it ; left the window 
open, and placed his clothes, with the money in a 
pocket, on a chair at his bedside. During the night 
some one entered by the door and removed the bag 
without first removing the money from it. Of 
course Oppenheim sued the hotel company, and 
had the pleasure of hearing the judge tell the jury 
that they should consider whether the loss would 
or would not have happened if O. had used the 
ordinary care wdiich a prudent man might reason- 
ably be expected to have used under the circum- 

"And the jury said what?" 

" Why, they said the hotel company were not 
liable; and the Court of Common Pleas, at West- 
minister, said that the judge had put the law cor- 
rectly, and that the jury had done tlieir duty." 

" But then the guest had been guilty of other 
acts of nei]jli<j:ence besides leavinc: his door un- 
locked ; he showed his j^urse — " 

" ^i{ tu Bnite ! " I remarked. 

" I forgot," was the confession. 

" The whole facts of the case must be looked at ; 
and the judges thought there was evidence of neg- 
ligence on Oppenheim's part which contributed to 



the loss. One of my Lords said that he agreed in 
the oiiinion that there is no obligation on a guest at 
an inn to lock his bedroom door; but the fact of 
the guest having the means of securing himself and 
choosing not to use them is one which, with the 
other circumstances of the case, should be left to 
the jury. The weight of it must, of course, depend 
upon the state of society at the time and place ; 
what would be prudent at a sm.'ili hotel in a small 
town might be the extreme of imprudence at a 
large hotel in a city like Bristol, where probably 
three hundred bedrooms were occupied by people 
of all sorts.-^ And one of the other judges re- 
marked that Lord Coke, in the case to which I first 
referred,^ only meant that an hotel-keeper could 
not get rid of his liability by merely handing his 
guest a key, and that he by no means laid it down 
that a guest might not be guilty of negligence in 
abstaining from using it." ^ 

"Well, what ami to do?" 

"Do! Why let the past bury the past, and in 
future remember three golden rules whenever you 
are at an hotel. First, under any circumstances 
lock your bedroom door when you retire for the 
night. Secondly, do not display your cash in pub- 
lic places; and. Thirdly, consider whether there are 
not special circumstances calling for special caution 
on your part, and if there are, act accordingly. 
But you have not told me yet how much you lost.". 

1 Per ^lontague Smith, J. ; Oppenlieim v. White Lion Hotel 
Co. L. K. C. P. 515. 

2 Cayle's Case. 

2 Oppenheim v. "White Lion Hotel Co. ante. 

\% ( • 


. ;• ' ,• 









j ! 

i ; 



i ' 




"Only $2; but it is the i)rinciple involved that I 
look at." 

" You rascal ! if I had known that it was such a 
paltry sum, I would not have taken the trouble to 
tell you all that I have." 



Time passed, and hack to the East we liad come. 
On a certain day my wife and myself, together witli 
a coiii)le of friends, yclept Mr. and Mrs. Vc Gex, 
engaged a carriage and pair to take us some twenty 
or thirty miles into the (H)untry to see some wonder- 
ful sights — what they were is quite immaterial at 
tliis late date. A jdeasant drive and charming day 
wo had. The night we were to spend at a little 
village inn. 

The mistress of the small establishment received 
us right warmly, so that a perfect glow of pleasure 
2)ervaded one's inner man. 

"Ah," said Mrs. De Gex, who was inclined 
towards sentimentalism, " how true arc the words 
of the poet ! 



i i 

■I i 


'"SVhoe'er has traveled life's dull round, 
"NVhero'er his stages may liavo been, 
May sigh to think that ho has found 
His warmest welcome at an inn.' " 

The innkeeper told our driver to leave the car* 
riage outside on the road. One of the party asked 
if that would be safe. 

"If it is not," I replied, "Boniface is responsible, 
for I remember that, in England, a man drove up 
to an inn on a fair day and asked the landlord 
if ho had room for the horse, and a servant of the 

CU7 3 




I I' 





cstiiblislimcnt put it into the stable, wliilc tlio trav- 
eler took his coat and whip into the house, where 
he got some refreshment. The hostler jjlaced the 
gig in the open street, (outside the inn-yard) where 
he was accustomed to leave the carriai^es of tjuests. 
Tlie gig having been stolen, the i)ubHcan was held 

"That seems rather hard, when, perhaps, the 
yard was full," some one remarked. 

" The landlord was not bound to receive the gig 
if he had not sufficient accommodation for it. The 
guest (lid not know whether there was room or not ; 
and as the hostler took the horse, he had a right to 
assume that there was. If the proprietor had 
wished to protect himself he should have told the 
traveler that he had no room in the yard, and that 
he would have to put the gig in the street, where, 
however, he would not be liable for it. lie did not 
do so, and had to bear the penalty.'^ And it has 
been hehl in this country that an innkeeper would 
be responsible in the same way where a guest's 
servant liad placed his master's property in an 
open, uninclosed space, by the direction of tho 
liostler, and upon being assured that it would be 
quite safe there." 3 

"Mr. Justice Story once said tliat in the country 
towns of America it is very common to leave 
chaises and carriages at inns under open sheds all 
night, and also to leave stable doors oj)en and 
unlocked ; and that if, under those circumstances, 

1 Jones V. Tylor, 1 Ad. & E. 522. 
2Xauwton, J., in Jones I'. Tyier. 
8 Piper V Manny, 21 Wend. 283. 




1 tho 

I that 










a horse or a chaise should bo stolon, it would de- 
serve consideration how far the innkeeper would 
be liable," ^ said Mr. De Gex, my companion, who 
had looked inside n law-book or two. 

*' I fancy it has been considered," I replied, '■ and 
the innkeeper has met with little consideration, 
and is held bound to i)rotect the proi)erty of those 
whom he receives as his iruests. In one instance, 
the driver i)ut his loaded sleigh in the waujon-house 
of the inn, where such things were usually placed; 
and the doors of the shed having been broken open 
and property stolen, the landlord was held bound 
to make good the loss, without loss of time.2 But 
Dr. Theo])hilus Parsons, who knows something of 
these matters, says that if a horse or carriage is put 
in an open shed with the owner's consent or by liis 
direction, the innkeeper will not be liable for their 
loss, and that where this is usually done and the 
owner of the horse knows the custom and gives no 
jiarticular instructions, it may be presumed that 
he consented and took the risk upon himself." ^ 

"Suppose we inspect the stable and see what 
accommodation there is for our equine friends." 
We entered. " Rather risky place to put two 
city horses in," De Gex continued. " Look at the 
flooring. A nag of any s})irit, not accustomed to 
the place, might kick through it and break its leg." 

"Well,"' I said, "tiie innkeeper is bound to pro* 
vide safe stabling for the horses of his guest, and 
if any evil betide the animals from being impro]>. 

i 'h 

1 Story on Bailments, sec. 478. 
-Chute r. ^Viggins, 14 Jolmson, 175. 
8 Parsons on Contracts, vol. 2, p. 1G9. 

1 1 




i j 

! I 



erly tied, or the stalls bcin;^ in bad repair, full 
compensation may bo recovered.^ lie is responsi- 
ble from the moment lie receives the quadrupeds 
until they leave; even after the owner has paiil his 
bill and his man is harnessing them to go;- and, 
as jx rule, the statutory laws limiting the liability of 
hotel-keepers do not -'ipply to horses or carriages." 

" Your view is the one a lawyer (a man without 
a Iieart) might take of it, but a merciful man is 
merciful to his beast and does not like to run the 
chance of its being killed." 

" The tavern-keeper's liability extends even to 
the death of the animals in his care,'*^ I remarked. 

" Still, one should himself exercise reasonable 
care and caution," returned De Gex. "I remember 
a gentleman, who ke[;t his horse at an inn, rode 
out one cveninij and on returniuGT himself took it 
into the stable and tied it up in the stall in which 
it had usually been kept. The next morning the 
horse was found dead in the same stall, its liead 
wedged fast in the trough, which was made of a 
hollow beech log having a bulge in the middle, 
thus rendering that part wider than the top. The 
poor beast had evidently killed itself in trying to 
extricate its head. The owner brought an action 
against the publican, but had to bear the loss, not 
only of his horse but also of the suit."* 

" Yet I know that where a horse had been choked. 

1 Dickenson v. Hodger.s, 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 179. 

2 Seymour v. Cook, 53 Barb. 451. 

SMetcalf v. Hess, 14 111. 12i) ; Uill v. Owen, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 
4Thickstern v. Howard, 8 Blackf. 535. 







)f a 







to (lentil l)y its halter, and it ^^'a9 proved that it 
was tied under tho siiperintendeiico and direction 
of tho owner himself, and in reply the owner 
proved that tho stall in which it had been was in 
very bad condition, it was held that tho innkeep- 
er could not give further evideiiee.l And when 
another innkeeper agreed with tho owner of a liorse 
'to entertain the man in charge <nio day ni every 
week, or oftener if ho should chance to stop at tho 
iim with the horse, furnish tlie latter witii proven- 
der and allow it to bo kept in a particular stall: 
no one but tho man in charcje took care of tho 


liorse; yet on its being injured in its stall, the inn- 
keeper was held answerable." '^ 

" And look, besides, there are no proper parti- 
tions between tho stalls," said my friend, " an(l 
some other najx miuflit kick one of ours: and vou 
know that it was decided in tho old country that 
vuider such circumstances tho publican would not 
be liable for tho injuries so inflicted, unless it could 
bo proved that ho did not take duo an«l proper care 
in excluding vicious and kicking horses." ^ 

"Ilah!" I exclaimed. " But that case has since 
been doubted, and it can scarcely be accepted as 
good law."^ Well, what shall wo do?" 

" Let's tell them to turn tho nags into tho field," 
said Do Gex. 

If you do, and they arc lost, stolen or injured. 


1 Jordan v. Boono, 5 Rich. 528. 

2 Washburn u. Jones, 14 Barb. 103. 
8 Dawson v. Chamney, 52 B. 33. 

* Wharton on Innkeepers, p. Ill; Matier v. Brown, 1 Cal. 






WO cannot look to our host for recompense, unless 
Muster llonifaco liimself l)o guilty of neglii^ence, as 
by putlinL? them in .1 field where j)its or ditches 
abound or fences and gates are broken or open. 
If, however, ho should ])ut them into the ])asturo 
of his own accord, lio would be answerable;! for 
then the field would bo considered as i)art of the 
inn iireniises. Although Storv thinks that the hit- 
ter rule should be qualified, as it is such a common 
custom in America in the summer time to put 
horses in a pasture, ho says tho implied consent of 
the guest may fairly be presumed, if ho knows tho 
l^ractice. '2 

"Well, let us send them over to the other house, 
where the stabling appears better, while wc our- 
selves lodge here," again suggested Mr. Do G. 

" That might do," I made answer; " for an inn- 
keeper is bound to receive a horse, even though 
tho owner chooses to go elsewhere.^ And it is clear- 
ly settled that in the eyes of the law a man becomes 
a guest at a place of public entertainment by hav- 
ing his horse there, though he himself neither 
lodges nor takes refreshments there."* 

" Cut I thought that an iniikeeper was not bound 
to take tho goods of a man who merely wishes to 
use the house as a place of deposit; ^ nor liable for 
things so left there, except as an ordinary bailee." ^ 

1 Cayle's Case, 8 Ecp. 32; Hawley v. Smith, 25 Wend. G42. 

2 Story on Bailments, sec. 478. 

8 Saunders r. Pluminer, Orl. Bridg. 227. 
* :Mason v. Thompson, 9 Pickering, 280. 
s Bennet v. Mellor, 5 T. R. 273. 

6 Wintermute v. Clarke, 6 Sandf. 242; Smith v. Dearlove, 6 
C. B. 132. 






" Oh, tli.'it rule! only applies to dciul things out 
of wliic^ii tho iu;m can niakc; no profit ; but with 
animals tho innkoc[)L'r is chargeable, because lie 
makes sotnething out of keejiing them. An<l, as I 
said, it has been frequently held that lie is liable 
for the loss of ji hors(\ aIthou'c!i its owner jiuts up 
at adifferont ])lacc. Hut there is some doubt." ^ 

"Will he also bo liable for the carriage?" asked 
my eomj)anion. 

"Yes, and for the; harness as well ; for the com- 
pensation paid for the horses will extend the host's 
responsibility to such articles. And the owner will 
be able to sue for damages if anything ha[)pcns to 
our nags, although they have been hired by us.^ If 
a servant brings his master's horse to an inn, and 
while there it is stolen, of course the master can sue 
the innkeeper; 3 and for all such legal purposes the 
hirer of goods will be deemed the owner's servant." 

" Supi)oso a horse-thief stops at an inn and there 
loses his i)ri/e, can the owner then sue the land- 
lord ? " 

" No; he must, under those trying circumstances, 
look simply to the person who first deprived him 
of his faithful nag,"^ I replied. 

"The other innkeeper may charge pretty well 
for the horses, if we stay here ourselves," suggested 
De Gex. 







1 Peel V. McGraw, 25 Wendell, 053 : York r. Grindstone, 1 
Salk. 388; Start o. Droraj^oia, a Bulst. 289. But see Griunell 
V. Cook, 3 Hills, N. Y. (JSG; Ini^allsbee r. Wood. :'>:) X. Y. 577; 
3f> Barb. N. Y. 425; Nowers v. Fethers, 01 N. Y. 34; Ilealey v. 
Gray, 08 Me. 480. 

2 Mason v. Thompson, supra. 

8 Bacon's Abr. Inns and Innkeepers, C. 
^ Bacon, supra. 


f ?f ' 




i i: 

!l I 

! !l 



" In tlic good old days of yoro lie could not have 
done that, lor innkeepers were bound to ask only a 
reasonable i)rice, to be calculated according to the 
rates of the adjoining nuirket, witiiout getting any- 
thing foi' litter ;l and if they made a gross over- 
charge, the guests had only to tender a reasonable 
sum, and have them indicted and fined for extortion.2 
But I fear me those halcyon days liave i)assed. 
Do you know that if a man is Ijeaten at an inn the 
proprietor is not answerable, althougli if the man's 
horse should be so treated, even if it were not 
known who did it, the publican will bo liable?"^ 

" That is queer law. Why is it? " 

"Because in ages long since gone by an innkeep- 
er's liability was confined to one's bo)ia ct catalla, 
and injury to a man is not damage to his bona ct 

" Well, I am sure I don't see what would dam- 
age his ' bones and cartilage,' if a good beating did 
not. Let us join the ladies." 

*' I think we had better, after that atrocious at- 
tempt at a ])un," I rei)lied. " Well said the Auto- 
crat of the Breakfast Table, 'a pun is prima facie 
an insult to the person you are talking with. It 
implies utter indifference to, or sublime contempt 
for, his remarks, no matter liow serious.' " 

We found our better halves had gone out for a 
walk. Knowing that their feminine curiosity w<mld 
soon bring them to a standstill we started in pur- 
suit, and speedily came up with thcni as they stood 


1 21 Jac I, cliap. 21, sec. 2. 

2 1 Hawk. 225. 

8 Cayle's Case, 8 Hep. 32; Stammin v. Davis, 1 Salk. 404. 



gazing at some rose bushes in a, pretty flower gar- 

" Did you iver sec such bea-u-ti-f ul roses ? " 
screamed Mrs. Do Gex, wlioso voice, when pitched 
in a high key, was as melodious as a jjcacock's. 

"And so many! " added Mrs. Lawyer. 

"I am somewliat a l^eliever in the doctrine of 
metempsychosis," said Mr. De Gex. 

" Wh;it has such a horrid tiling to do with 
roses?" asked his wife. 

*' Merely that, if it be true, I may liave seen finer 
and more numerous flowers long, long ago." 

"Explain," I exclaimed. 

" Well, when in another form I mnv, at the be- 
ginning of the Cliristi.ui era, have been present at 
the regatta near lovely Baia) and seen the whole 
surface of the Lucrinc Sea strewn with these flow- 
ers, according to custom; or I may have been 
present at some of old N"ero\s banquetings, wiien 
ho caused showers of rose-leaves to be rained down 
upon the assembled guests; or, in fact, I may have 
been at Ileliogabalus' dinner i)arty, when su(;h 
heaps of these same flowers were flung over the 
revelers that several were smotliered to death. 
That frail beauty, Cleopatra, was wont to s[)end 
immense sums on roses, and at one entertaimnent, 
that she gave in honor of her friend Anthony, she 
had the whole floor covered more than a yard 

" How deliii'litful ! " chorused the ladies. 

" The Sybarites used to sleep upon beds stuffed 
with rose-leaves. That old tyrant Dionysius, at 





his revels, constantly reclined on a coucli made of 
tlie blossoms. Verros, witli wliom Cicero had the 
tussle, was accustomed to travel through hir ov- 
ince reclining gracefully on a mattrass full e icm; 
and not content with this, he had a wreath of roses 
round his head and another around his neck, with 
leaves intertwined. And Antiochus, when ho 
wanted to be uncommonly luxurious, would sleep 
in a tent of gold and silver upon a bed of these 
• " Did they indulge in attar ? " 

" I cannot say, but at his parties, Nero — that 
champitm fiddler of Home — would liave his foun- 
tains flinging up rose-water; and while the jets 
were pouring out tlie fragrant liquid, white rose- 
leaves were on the ground, in the cushions on 
which the guests lay, hanging in garlands on their 
noble brows, and in wreaths around their necks. 
The couleur de rose pervaded the dinner itself, and 
a rose pudding challenged the appetites of the 
guests, while, to assist digestion, they indulged in 
rose wine. nelio2:abalus was so fond of this wine 
that he used to bathe in it." 
. " What a waste ! " said my wife. 

" Whose ? That -irPs ? " I asked. 

"You horrid man ! " returned my wife. " But I 
know you pretend to dislike roses." 

" Yes," I said, " if metempsychosis is correct, I 
must liave been killed two or three times durini* 
the Wars of the Roses. I believe, with the ancient 
Aztecs, that sin and sorrow came into the world 
through the first woman plucking a forbidden 










"He is, perhaps, not quite so bad as the lady 
who liad siicli a strong antipathy to this queen of 
flowers tiiat she actually fainted when her lover 
approached lier wearing an artificial one in his but- 
ton-hole ; nor as good Queen Bess's lady-in-waiting, 
who disliked the flower so much that her cheek 
actually blistered when a white one was pLiced uj)- 
on it as she slejjt. lie is most like Tostig of old," 
continued my wife. 

" IIo cannot sracU a rose but pricks his noso 
Against the thorn and rails against the rose." 

Our position changed and so did the subject. 
# * # « # 

The next day when we went over for our horses 
we found a most interestiuGC discussion ixoinur on 
between the landlord and a man of a class some- 
what too common in these hard times, an impecu- 
nious lawyer, concerning the right of the former 
to detain the horse of the latter for the hotel bill 
of the owner. 

"You can't do it," said the poverty-stricken dis- 
ciple of Coke. "No innkeeper can detain the other 
goods and chattels of a guest for payment of the 
expenses of a horse, nor a horse for the expenses of 
the guest. You can only keep my horse for the 
price of its own meat, and that has been paid for.l 
If a man broug:ht several horses to vour old inn, 
each one could be detained only for its own keep, 
and not for that of tlie others ; and if you let the 

lllosse V. Braiuat(!a(l, 2 Kol. Rep. 438; T'.ac. Abr. vol. 4, p. 
411; Parsons on Contracts, vol. 3, p. '-'50. But see MuUiner v. 
Florence, L. 11. a Q. B. D. 4-)4. 


\ kk 



I. 'i 




I i 



owner take away all but one, you could not keep 
that one until your whole bill was jiaid, but you 
would h:ivo to give it up on tender of the amount 
due for its keep.i Hullo ! " he added, as he saw me, 
"here's a wntleman who knows all about such thinu's. 
Is not what I state correct?" he coolly asked. 

" Certainly," I said, turning to the landlord. 
"Mr. Blackstone's law is better than his pay; 
though, i)erhaps, Mr. Story may be said to doubt 
his last statement." ^ 

"But," said Boniface, a short, fat man, mado 
without any apparent neck at all — only head and 
shoulders like a codfish — "but the rascal did not 
pay me for the last time he put up his old beast 
here, and I'll keep it now till I am })aid or till it 
dies, which latter event will i)robably happen iirst to 
such a h'.vx of bones." 

" You can't do that, old boy," said Mr. B., de- 

" He is right again," I replied. " If you let a guest 
take away his horse, unless, indeed, he merely takes 
it out for exercise, day by day, anlmo revertendi^^ 
it amounts to giving him credit and a relinquish- 
ment of your right of lien, so that you can't after- 
wards retake it. And even if the man was to come 
back and run up another account for the keep of 
his horse, although you might detain it for the lat- 
ter debt, you could not for the former." '^ 

1 ^[oss V. Townsend, 1 Bulstr.,207. But seo Story on liail- 
meiits, sec. 47G. 
" Story on Bailments, sec. 47G. 

3 Allim V. Smith, VI C. B., N. S. G38. 

4 Jones r. Tluu'loe, 8 Mod. 172; Jones v. Pearle, 1 Strange. 
5oij; Parsons ou Contracts, vol. o, \}. 250. 



"But have i no lion upon the horse of n guest? 
Beskles, I did nc^t let him take it away. lie went 
off with it at daybreak, ])efore any one was up, tlie 
villain," said mine liost, waxing more and more 
wrathy as the thought of past grievances recurred 
to liim. 

"He, lie, he!" laughed B. "You might have 
retaken it if you had been spry enough, and then 
you might have kept it ; but now it's too late, too 
late, too late, as the song says." ^ 

" Exactly so," I added. " Of course, my dear 
sir, there is little doubt but what you have a right 
to detain a horse, brought to you by a traveler, for 
its kee]).2 And if you kept that old nag you would 
have a perfect right to continue to charge for the 
food sup[)lied from day to day, while it remained 
in your possession, and that although Mr. B. dis- 
tinctly told you that he would not be responsible 
for anything supplied to liis horse ; bi'cause other- 
wise your security would soon be reduced i > the 
value of an old hide and bones.3 But then cui 

" What's that? " asked the astonished imikeeper. 

" I mean, what -would you gain by the additional 
outlay of good fodder?" I exjjlained. 

" Why, I would make the ohl thing work!" re- 
jolied the man. 

" No, indeed ! " said Blackstone. " You would 

1 Ross V. Bramstead, 2 Rol. Hep. 438. 

2 York V. Grindstone, 2 Ld. Ilaym. 8(](). But soo Fox v. ^rc- 
Gregor, 11 Barb. (N. Y. )41 ; Saint v . Sniit li, 1 Cal(l\v.(Tcnn. )r>\. 

8 Gilbert v. Berkeley, Skin. G48. And s(!0 Scarfo v. Morgan, 
i M. & W. 270; and Somes v. B. Emp. Ell. Bl. &. Ell. 353. 








I * 

I • 

11 I 

I 1 





have no right to ride on my horse, or use him for 
your own benefit in any way." i 

" You would have no more right to use it for 
your own pleasure and benefit than a man who dis- 
trains a cow for ouo . ;i3 to enjoy the fruits of her 
ruminations. You could onlv ride the horse for 
the purpose of ja-eserving its health by proj^jer exer- 
cise," ^ I remarked. 

"I am dashed if I", '..o ;,hat." cried the j^ublican, 
waxing fierce. 

"You would have to do ■t,''^ shrieked Black- 
stone, triumphanlly. 

" Well," then roared the mast: r : Oie establish- 
ment, "I'd sell the blamed thing quick enough." 

" If you did you would get yourself into hot 
water, and liave to pay me the full value of the 
beast; for an innkeeper can't sell a horse he detains 
for its board without the consent of the owner.4 
Ho ! ho ! ho ! " lauijrhed the little rnscal. 

The poor landlord looked at me with such a de- 
spairing glance — a look of a dying duck in a thun- 
der-storm — that I could scarce restrain my risible 
faculties as I remarked : 

" I am afraid your adversary is correct, and not 
even if a liorse were to eat its head off could vou 
sell it, unless you chanced to live in London or 

1 Westbrooko v. Griffith, !Moor. bTG; Jone3 r. Tlmrloe, 8 
Mod. 172; Mullincr v. Florence, L. 11, 3 Q. B. D. 481). 

- Westbrooke v. Griffith, sujjra. 

8 Idem. 

4 Jones V. Pcarle, Str. 5j(>; Thames 1. W. Co. v. Pat. Der- 
rick Co. 1 Jolins. & W. 97; 27 L. J. 0. 714; Mulliner v. rior- 
enco, L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 4i-4. 



Exeter. Your only remedy would be to sue for 
the i)rice of ihe food, get judgment, and then sell.i 
You cannot sell a right of lien, or transfer the 
property, without losing your right and rendering 
yourself liable to an action. One must proceed by 
suit. " 

The landlord turned to the rascally attorney, and 
shaking his fist at him, exclaimed : " Get out, and 
if ever you darken my door again — look out!" 

" Keep cool, sir, keep cool, the day is warm. 
Don't shake your list in my face, sir. It is not the 
fir^t time I've done the old chap," added my un- 
worthy confrere, turning to us with a look of 
importance ; " and it will not be the last, unless 
I've read law for naught." 

'^ IIow did you take him in before?" I queried. 

" Well, some years ago I was hard up — not the 
llrst, perhaps not the last time I have been in that 
state — and I knew not how to get my team fed for 
a week or two. So, believing that money had a 
considerable influence with our friend here, I got a 
chap to run off with my i)onies, bring them here, 
and throw out some hints that it would be all riijjht 
in a pecuniary point of view if they could be kept 
in the stable for a few days until the affair blew 
over. All went merry as a marriage bell. I adver- 
tised for horses lost, stolen, or strayed, and after 
some three weeks ha])pened here and quite acci- 
dentally, you know, found my span. Of course 
mine host wanted pretty good pay, but I talked to 

i"SVliarton on Innk. 122; Cross on Lien, 045 n. 
2 Fox r. McGregor, 4 Ikirl). 41; Ilickmau u. Thomas, IG Ala. 
CGG; Miller v. Marstou, 85 Me. 153. 

' Hi 

( ! 






' • 


him like a father; toM him tliat I knew that if a 
traveler brings to an inn the liorse of a third per- 
son, the innkeeper has a perfect riglit to detain it 
for its keep ; that of course he was not bound to 
inquire whose horse it was; ^ that tliat highly esti- 
mable and worthy occupant of the bench in days 
that are no more, I mean Judge Coleridge, said 
that with reference to an innkeei)er's lien there was 
no difference between the goods of a guest and 
those of a third j^crson brought by a guest.'-^ This 
pleased the old rascal. Then I pleaded poverty, but 
tShylock was unmoved ; then I assumed an appear- 
ance of anger at his keeping my horses and went 

"But how did that help you?" I asked impa- 
tiently, growing weary of a story that was long 
enough for the ears of an antediluvian patriarch. 

"Oh, I had not left the worthy's house live min- 
utes before I happened, quite accidentally, you 
know, to meet the man who had taken the horses. 
Back we came. Boniface admitted that he was 
the one who had brought my ponies to the inn. 
Then said I: 'Sir, this man has confessed that he 
told you that he did not own the liorses, that ho 
liad stolen them ; you, therefore, became a party to 
his crime and have no right to keep my horses any 
longer for their charges. See — here is the law ; ' and 
I showed him Oliphant on Horses, page 120 ; 3 r^^i 

-York V. Grcuaugli, 2 Ld. Raym. SGG; llobinson v. Walker, 
Pop. I'll. 

^Turrill v. Crawley, 13 Ad. & E. (N. S.) 11)7,- Mauuiug v. 
Ilolknbcck. 27 ^Vis. 202. 

« See, also, Johnson v. Hill, 3 Stark. 172. 



the fellow at once caved in. Ta-ta, Mr. Law- 

And so off went the man to practice liis knaveries 
and trickeries on some otlier nnfortunatc members 
of the fycnui homo. The only consolation of a vir- 
tuous man is that 

" Donhtloss tlio pleasure is as groat 
Of beiug cheated as to cheat." 

" Well," said my friend, who had all this time 
been stand ini; bv, a silent but not an unbenefited 
listener, " Well, it strikes me that the law concern- 
ing innkeei)ers and horses needs what Lord Dun- 
dreary thought the country did, that is to say, 
namely, to wit, improving!" 

" True for you, ' I replied. " For instance, until 
recently it was doubtful whether an innkeeper who 
detains a horse as a pledge for its keep, can detain 
also the saddle and bridle, or even the halter which 
fastens it to the stall.^ And where a man stopped 
with his horse at an inn under suspicious circum- 
stances, and the police ordered the innkeei)er to 
retain the animal, it was held that the poor landlord 
had no lien.^ And if a neiii-hbor leaves his wvv* 
with an innkeeper to be fed and kept, allowing him 
to use it at his pleasure, and a creditor of the owner 
seize it for a debt, the poor i)ublican has no lien for 
the animal's keep;^ nor^vould he have, where ho 



■ . i 


i ^l 

I ji' 


1 Wharton, p. 120; Stirt v. Drungold, 3 Bulst. 289. But see 
Mullincr v. Florence, L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 484. 

2 Burns v. Bigot, 1) C. & P. 208. 

8 Grinnell v. Cook, 3 Hill, (N. Y.) 486. 

! I 





Loanls tlio horses of a stage line, under a special 
ai^reement." ^ 

*'Wliat about a livery-stable keeper?" asketl 
Do Gex. 

"Down in G.'orgia, it was held tliat lie liad a 
right of lien on horses and buggies left in liis keep- 
ing;- l)ut everywhere else, it is considered lliat ho 
lias no such lien, for tlie contract witli liim is that 
tlio owner is to have tlic horse wlienever required ;'^ 
and tlie claim of a lien would be inconsistent with 
the neoKissary enjoyment of the jiroperty." ^ 

" Suppose the livery man pays out money to a 
vet. for advice?" 

" That would make no difference.^ But if a man 
who is both an innkeeper and a livery-stable keeper 
receives a horse, and does not say ho takes it in tlio 
latter capacity, he has all the responsibilities of an 
innkeeper, as well as all his j)rivileges.^ On the 
oilier hand, if an iniikee})er receives liorses and 
carriages on livery, the fact that the owner on a 
subsequent day tidvcs refreshment at the inn will 
not give the innkeeper an innkeeper's rights.'^ I 
was almost forgetting to say that even a livcry- 
stablo keeper may have a lien by express agree- 

1 Dixon V. Diilby, U. C. Q. B. 79. 

2Grammoll v. Schley, 41 Ga. 112. 

8 Judson V. Etheridge, 1 C. .<;; :M.743; Anderson v. Bell, 2 0. 
& M. oOl; Parsons on Contracts, vol. o, p. 250. 

^Kinlock v. Craig, 3 L. II. 110; Tayloru. Robinson, 8 Taunt. 
G4S; Jackson v. Cummins, 5 M. & W. 342. 

5 Orchard v. Rackstraw, 9 C, B. G98; Hickman v. Thomas, 
10 Ala. GGGjTliicksteiu v. Howard, 8 Blackf. 535. 

c Mason v. Thompson, 9 Pick. 280 

'Smith V. Dearlove, G C. B. 132. 



mont;i and if he exercises any labor or trouble in 
the improvement of the animals, ho will have a lien 
lur his charges. 2 

"Well, I rather fancy that the ladies will think 
we have not almost, but altogether, forgotten them, 
and intend to pass another night here. Let us bo 

^ AVallaco v. Woodnrato, 1 Kvan ."l: :sr 1'):? 

r'nm'"-'^" r •//*'^"'"' '' ^^- ^^ ^*- -^': '' I5ins.i;i0; Jackson r. 
Cummins, 5 M. cS: W. 342; Harris v. Woodruff, 124 Mass. 205. 

I f 



. 1 


f I; 

i '% 

,' ■■ '> 

Chapter VIII. 



t 1 


As wo turned to Icuvo tlio j)rcmiscs to liastcn 
back to our respective wives, leaving our Jelui to 
bring tlie carriage and horses, we were accosted by 
a most (lilaj)idated specimen of the genus "seedy," 
wlio api)eared to be a kind of stable-boy or hostler 
not overstocked with brains. Judging from :i cursory 
glance, liis pants had parted in irreconcilable anger 
from his l)oots, and ha<l cautiously shrunk well up 
to the knees — as if aj>prehensive of :i kick from 
the biix too wliicli was well enouixli to bo outside 
the remains of the boots; here and there patches of 
bare skin peci)ed out through his tattered set-u^xjus, 
as if i)loased to see dayliglit and have a liulo fresh 
air. Yet of such varied hues were they, that the 
most ])rofound etlmologist would be perplexed to 
decide wliether the jnan should be classed amonuj 
the Caucasian, Mongolian, Malay, Indian, or Negro 
race, or whether lie was a hybrid comj)ound of 
all live. His coat, in colors, would have rivaled 
Joseph's, and made the teeth of his naughty breth- 
ren water witli tenfold jealousy. His hat might 
have for generations been used in winter to exclude 
the rains and snows from a broken window, in sum- 
mer for the breeding place of barn-door fowls. The 
countenance of this tatterdemalion seemed as empty 
as his pockets, and his brain as disordered as hia 








long yollow hair; liis breath as ah'oliol'u; as tlio 
Htore-rooni of a dislillery; liis tout cnHcmhle aiiy- 
lliiiiU hut Kim'.'cstivo of the *'is ho not .1 man and a 
brother" Bentiment. 

In ]>iteou.s tones tliis wreck of what, ]iorcliance, 
was onco .'I niot!ier\s darling, fi fatlier's pride, asked: 

" Ijo you a liyiir, sur?" 

*' Yes. What do you want ? " I returned. 
' " Weil, sur, I'm a, poor man, witli not a cint to 
bliss myself wid ; and I conio here one day and got 
a bite of viltals, and bedad, sur, the ouhl lindlord 
eeized me for rint, and said, says lie, that lie had 
a lane upon me for those same scraps of cold food; 
and says he, I must stay hero and work for him 
until I can pay up. Now, kin lie C > that same, 
Vur honor ? " 

" No, most certainly not. He has no right to 
keep you or any other man for such a reason. 1 So 
you had better be off." 

"Long life to your honor, and may the holy 
saints — but kin he," and again the voice sank into 
a wail, " kin he kape me clothes ? " 

"Nothing that you have on,"'^ I replied, as I 
turned away, thinking that I could hear the scratch 
of the recording angel's pen as he scored another 
to the number of my good deeds. 

" Was it not considered at one time that an inn- 
keeper had the right to detain the ])ersons of his 
guests for the j^ayment of their bills?" queried De 

iSunbolf V. Alford, 3^1. & "W. 254; Parsons on Contracts, 
vol. 3, p. 250. 
2 Ibid. 


' 'j| 



"Yes, ol<l Bncon so lays it clown,i and so did one 
Judge Eyros,2 loiii^ sinco gone to his account ; and 
iu some of tlic old text-books the same view is 
taken. But tlio idea was exploded forty years ago 
by the combined effort of Lord Abingcr, C. B., and 
bis puisnes, Barons Parke, Bolland, and Gurney.'* 

*'Ou wliat occasion?" 

"A mini of tlio name of Sunbolf sued an inn- 
keeper for assaulting and beating liim, shaking and 
pulling bini about, stripping and pulling off bis 
coat, carrying it away and converting it to bis own 



" That was rather roucrh of him." 

" It was, but the innkeeper, Alford, replied that 
ho kept a common inn for the reception, lodging 
and entertainment of travelers and others; and 
that just before the time when he did all those 
things complained of, Sunbolf and divers other 
l")ersons in company with him came into the inn as 
guests; and that ho then found and provided them, 
at their request, with divers quantities of tea and 
other victuals; and that Sunbolf and the other per- 
sons tiicreupon, and just ])eforc the committing of 
the grievances, b^'came mid were indebted to him 
in a certain small sum of money, to wit, eleven 
shillings and three pence, for the said tea and vict- 
uals : and thereupon he, the innkeeiier, just before 
he did the things of which ho was accused, required 
and demanded of Sunbolf and the others, payment 
by tliera, or some or one of them, of the said sum, 

1 Bacon's Abr. Inns. D. 

2 Newton V. Triaj, 1 Shower, 2G9. 



or some security or pledge for the payment tliere- 
of; but Sunbolf an<l tlie others wholly refused 
then, or at any other time, to ])ay to liini the s;iid 
sum, or leave wilh or give to him any security or 
jdedgo for tho i^aynient of the same ; and before 
he did the acts spoken of, Siiid)olf persisted in 
leaving, and would liavc departed and left the said 
inn, against the innkeeper's will ;:nd consent, with- 
out i)avini]' the said sum of eleven shillings and 
three pence, so due as aforesaid, had not he. A., 
kept and detained him, Sunbolf, or some other of 
the said persons, or their goods and chattels, or 
some of them, until they paid it; and because 
Sunbolf and the others would g > and depart from 
the said inn without paying, and refused to pay 
that sum to him, and because the simi remained 
"wholly due to him, and because Sunbolf and the 
others would not, and refused to leave with or give 
any pledge or security whatever to him for the 
payment of tliat sum, and he (that is, Alford) could 
not procure or obtain from them, or any or either 
of them, any other ])ledge or se(;urity than the said 
coat mentioned, he, (the said Alford) at tlie time 
mentioned, did gently lay his hands on Sunbolf to 
prevent him going and departing from the said inn 
without his or the other perstnis paying the said 
eleven shillings and three pence, or giving him 
some pledge or security for the i)ayment of it ; and 
he did then, for the purpose of acquiring such secu- 
rity or pledge, to :i gentle and necessary degree, 
lay his hands uj^on Sunbolf, and strip and i)ull the 
said coat from and off of liim, tho same bein*' a 







reasonaljlc i)lGrlgo or Bccurity in bt-hnlf, ninl 
then placed tho snmo in tlio s:iul inn ^vllorein ho 
hud thenco thitherto kept and detained t!ie s:nno as 
fiucli pledge and security, for tho said debt of eleven 
shillings and tlireo ])ence, being wholly duo and 
unpaid to hun ; and, therefore, he (Ali'ord) suffered 
and permilled Sunbolf and tho others to go and 
depart from tho said inn ; and on tho occasion 
aforesaid lie necessarily and unavoidably, to a small 
degree, shook and pulled about Sunbolf; and these 
were tho acts complained of." 

"Well said the wise man of old, ^ Audi alteram 
partem^'' said my friend. "Alford's story gives 
quite a different aspect to the whole affair." 

" It gives you, at any rate, an idea of the long-^ 
winded ple:idings in vogue in the year of grace 

" Wjis A.'s explanation satisfactory to the court?" 

*'0h, dear, no! Parke, B., asked, during the ar- 
gument, if an innkeeper liad aright to turn his guest 
out without a coat ; or if he had a right to take off 
all his clothes, and send him away naked; and af- 
terwards, in giving judgment, lie clearly and dis- 
tinctly answered his own queries, and said that an 
innkeeper had no ])ower to strip a guest of liis 
clothes; for if lio had, then, if the innkeeper took 
tlic coat off his back, and that proved an insuflicient 
pledge, ho might go on and strip him naked, and 
that would apply either to a male or female " 

"That Avould be sliockinij!" 

"The learned baron merely considered it utterly 
absurd, and that the idea could not be entertained 




for a moment. Another of the judges said that lie 
h:id always understood the law to bo tliat the 
clothes on the person of a man, and in liis posses- 
sion at tliG time, arc not to bo considered as goods 
to which the right of lien can properly apply ; that 
the consequence of holding otherwise might be to 
subject parties to disgrace and duress in order to 
compel tlieni to i)ay a trifling debt wliich, after all, 
was not due, and which the innkeeper had no pre- 
tence for demnndinsr." 

"But, my dear fellow, we were speaking of the 
right of a landlord to keep the body of his guest." 

"To be sure w^e were. The Chief Baron said 
that if an innkeeper had a riglit to detain a guest for 
the non-payment of liis bill, ho had a right to de- 
tain him until the bill was paid, which might bo for 
years or might bo for aye ; so that by the common 
law, a man who owed a small debt, for which he 
could not be imprisoned by legal process, might 
yet be detained by an innkeeper for life. Such a 
proposition my Lord Chief Baron siiid was mon- 
strous, and, according to my lord Baron Parke, 
was startling." ^ 

" For my part, I think it is high time we rejoined 
the ladies," said De Gex, with the air of a man sat^ 
isfied with what he had heard. 

"All right; throw law to the dogs, to improve 
upon the immortal bard." 

* • # * * # 

Our return drive was as pleasant as that of tho 

iSunbolf V. Alford, 3 Mees. & ^Y. 248. 



preceding day, except that wo iniglit well have ex- 
claimed, in tlie words of the poet : 

t * 

i; % 

"IIow tho claslicd dry du3t, 
Nebulous nothing, 
Nettled our nasal 
Nostrils, you noodles I " 

En route, wo stopped at a little wayside inn for 
luncheon. On the table tho j^icce de vcsistanGQ was 

" I never," observed De G., " see beefsteak but I 
think of poor old George III." 

"Had he a particular penchant for it?" I asked. 

"Not that. But once, when his intellect Avas 
sadly clouded, he was breakfasting at Kew, and 
the conversation turned on the great scarcity of 
beef in England. ' Why don't the jDCople phuit 
more beef?' asked his majesty. Of course he was 
told that beef could not be raised from seed or 
slips ; but he seemed incredulous, and, taking some 
pieces of steak, he went out into the garden and 
planted tliem. Next morning he visited the spot 
to see if the beef had sprouted, and iinding some 
snails crawling about, he took them for small oxen, 
and joyfully exclaimed to his wife : ' Here they 
are ; here they arc, Charlotte — horns and all ! ' " 

" Poor fellow — poor fellow ! " 

By and by, apple dumplings appeared. "Ila!" 
I exclaimed, "here are more reminders of the poor 
old king! How his Britannic majesty used to puz- 
zle over the iDroblem of how the apples got iusido 
the pastry." 



" The Chinese cooks would have bewildered him 
still more with some of their ingenious perform- 
ance?," remarked De Gox. 

"In what respect?" queried the ladies. 

"At a recent banquet in San Francisco, an orange 
was placed beside the plate of each guest. The 
fruit, to an ordinary observer, appeared like any 
other oranges ; but, on being cut open, they were 
found to contain, niirahile dlctu " 

"What?" asked my wife. 

"Excuse me, I should not have quoted Latin. 
Thev were found to contain five different kinds of 


delicate jellies. Of course, every one was puzzled, 
first of all, to find how the jelly got in; and giving 
up that as a conundrum too difficult to bo solved, 
he found himself in a worse quandary over tlie 
problem as to how the pulpy part of the orange 
got out. Colored eggs were served up, and inside 
of them were found nuts, jellies, meats, and con- 

" Wonderful men those Celestials ! " I exclaimed. 
"They must have got such notions from the ban- 
queting table of Jove himself." 

"I tliought tliey indulged in nothing nicer than 
cats or dogs, rats or mice, with an occasional dash 
of bird's-nest soup," said Mrs. De Gox. 

"Altogether a mistaken notion," returned her 

Tea was the beverage. I nearly upset the table 
as I reached over for the teapot, whereupon my 
comrade exclaimed in the words of Gibber's rha^j- 


\i ^ 







" Tea, thou soft, thou sober, sage and venerable 
liquid; thou ffuialo tongiie-runniug, smile-smooth- 
ing, heart-o])enlng, wink-tippiiig cordial, to wlioso 
glorious insipidity wo owo the lKipi>iost moments 
of our lives, let me fall prostrate." 

"Time's up," I said, as straightening myself I 
swallowed another cupful. 

, # * « # • 

When we were again fairly under way and the 
ladies were quietly talking some scandal, sotto voce, 
I said to De Gex : " Keferring again to the inn- 
keeper's lien " 

"Let us have no more about it," he replied 
promptly. " Honestly, I must say that you are not 
a Paganini and cannot please by always jjlaying 
UDon one strimjr." 

"Perhajjs not, but as rare old Ben Jonson re- 
marked, ' when I take the humor of a thing once, I 
am like a tailor's needle — I go through,' and a little 
more information on that important subject may 
prove useful to you some day." 

"If you will talk on that dry subject, kindly in- 
form me why publicans have a lien at all," said my 

" Well, you know that a lien is the right of a 
man to whom any chattel is given to detain it 
until some jjecuniary demand upon or in respect of 
it has been satislied by the owner, and as the law 
treats an innkeeper as a i)ublic servant, and imposes 
upon him certain duties — making him, for example, 
receive all guests who are willing and able to 
pay, and are unobjectionable on moral, 2)ecuniary, 



or hygienic grounds, and bestow on tlie preserva- 
tion of their goods an extraordinary amount of 
care — so, to compensate liini for this obligation, 
the hiw gives him the i)ower of detaining his guest's 
goods, (exce])t such as are in tlie visitor's actual 
possession and custody, in his hand for example,) 
until he pays for the entertaimnent afforded, in. 
eluding, of course, remuneration for the care of 
those goods. The lien extends to all the goods and 
chattels of the guest, even those especially handed 
over to the host and ])laced by him ai)art from the 
personal goods of his visitor."' ^ 

" Then, I suppose an iimkeeper has a lien upon 
the goods of a guest only." 

" Exactly so ; so that if he receive the person as 
a friend, or a boarder,^ or under any special agree- 
ment,3 or an arrangement to i)ay at a future time,^ 
he has no lien upon the goods, for he has no re- 
sponsibility with regard to them. In one case, 
however, it was decided that if a man came to an 
hotel as a guest, his subsequently arranging to 
board by the week would not alter the character in 
which he was originally received, nor take away 
the host's rii^ht of lien."^ 

" Suppose things are brought which the innkeeper 
is not bound to receive — what then?" 

. vl 

Sii i 

iMullineru. Florence, L. H. 3 Q. B. D. 485. 

2Dropey.Tbaire, Latch, 127; Crinstono r. laukccper, Iletl. 
49 ; Pollock v. Landis, 30 Iowa, (J51 ; Ilursh v. liyors, 21) Mo. 
409 ; Ewart v. Stark, 8 Rich. (S. C.) 423. 

8 Wintermute v. Clarke, 5 Sandf . 242. 

4 "Whartcni, p. 123. 

fi Berkshire Co. v. Troctor, 7 Cush. 417. 




" Where he actually takes in goods for a guest, 
whether he were legally bound to do so or not, he 
is responsible for their safety, and so has a lien 
upon them.i But if anything is left with liim, 
merely to take care of, by one who does not him- 
self put up at the house, the poor innkeeper has no 
right to keep them until paid for his trouble ;2 un- 
less, indeed, it is a horse, or other animal, out of 
the keep of wliich he can receive a benefit.^ And 
you heard old Blackstone say, this a. m., that the 
proprietor is not bound to inquire whether or not 
the guest is the real owner of the goods ; ^ and if 
the guest turns out a thief, still the true owner can- 
not get back his properly without paying the 
charges upon it.^ In Georgia, however, it has been 
held that the innkeeper has no lien against the true 
owner, exuept for the charges upon the specific ar- 
ticle on which the lien is claimed." ^ 

" But supposing he really knows that the guest 
is not the owner?" said my companion. 

" Then he has no lien. Broadwood, the cele- 
brated piano .Tianufacturer, loaned a piano to M. 
Hababier, who was staying at a hotel. The court 
held that, as it was furnished to the guest for his 
temporary use by a third party and the innkeeper 

iTrelfall v. Berwick, 41 Law J. Q. B. 266 ; affirmed, L. R. 
lOQ. B. (Exch.)^lO. 

2 Bennett v. Mellor, 5 T. H. 273. 

8 Allen V. Smith, 12 Com. B. N. S. 038 ; Peet v. McGraw, 25 
Wend. 654. 

* Johnson v. Hill, 3 Stark. 172 ; Kent v. Shuckard, 2 Bam. 
&Adol. 805. 

5 Johnson v. Hill, supra. 

^ Domestic Sewing Machine Go. v. Walters, 50 Ga. 573w 



knew it belonged to such party, and as Ilababicr 
had not brought it to the place as liis own, either 
upon his coming to or while staying at tlie inn, tlie 
proprietor had no lien upon it.^ But of course, if 
a servant, or an agent, in the course of his employ- 
ment, come to an inn and runs up a bill, the pro- 
prietor has a lien upon his master's goods in the 
servant's custody." 2 

" How long does this right last ? " 

"Only so long as the goods remain in the inn. 
If the guest goes away and then comes back again, 
the publican cannot retain them for the prior debt.^ 
If, however, the unsophisticated landlord is be- 
guiled into letting them go by a fraudulent repre- 
sentation, his riglit remains;^ and if they are taken 
away, he may follow them if he does not loiter.5 
Delays are always dangerous, except in cases of 
matrimony. Of course, a tender of the money 
claimed extinguishes the lien ; ^ but it must be a 
valid tender. Tossing down a lot of money on a 
table, and offering it if the innkeeper will take it in 
full of the bill, is not a proper tender.7 Sometimes, 
if too much is claimed, or the claim is on a wrong 
account, a tender may not be necessary." ^ 

iBroadwood v. Granara, 10 Ex. 423. See, also, Carlisle v. 
Quittlebaum, 2 Bail. 452 ; Fox v. McGregor, 11 Barb. 41. 

"^ Cross on Lien, p. 30 ; Snead u. Watkins, 1 Com. B. N. S. 2G7. 

3Byall V. , Atk. 1G5. See, also, Chapter VII. 

4 Manning v. Hollenbeck, 27 Wis. 202. 

CDicaa v. Stockley, 7 Car. & P. 587 ; Bristol v. Wilsmore, 1 
Barn. & C. 514. 

OKatcliff y. Davies, Cro. Jac. 244. 

7 Gordon v. Cox, 7 Car. & P. 172. 

8 Per Willes. J., Allen v. Smith, 12 Com. B. N. S. C44. 




1 t 


; f 



" Must the man say wliy he refuses to give up 
the goods ? " 

" If lie gives a reason for detaining them other 
than liis right of lien, he waives that, and it is gone ; 
Btill, merely omitting to mention it when the goods 
are demanded will not prevent him enforcing it."l 

" Could not a guest get off by paying a small 
Bum on account ? " 

" No ; for then a farthing in cash would destroy 
the right; 2 but taking a note j^ay able at a future 
day will put a stop to it." 3 

" I believe that the landlord cannot sell the goods 
seized," suggested my comrade. 

"No, except by consent or operation of Liw."* 

" Is there no limit to the amount for which the 
lien can exist?" 

" That point was disposed of in a case where a 
young fellow's mother asked a hotel-keeper not to 
allow her son, who was a guest in the house, more 
than a certain quantity of brandy and water per 
diem, yet mine host supplied the youth with con- 
siderably more of that beverage than was named. 
When the bill was disputed, the judge held, that 
a landlord was not bound to examine the nature of 
the articles ordered by a guest before he supplied 
them; but might furnish whatever was ordered, 
and that the guest was bound to pay for them, pro- 


1 Owen V. Knislit, 5 Scott, 307. 

2 Hodgson V. Loy, 7 T. R. mO. 
sHorncastle v. Farran, 2 Barn. & Aid. 407. 

*Case V. Fogg, 46 Mo. (56; Thames Iron "W. Co. v. Patent 
Derrick Co. 1 Johns. & \V. i)7j Mulliucr v. Florence L. 11.3 
Q. li. 484. 



vided lio was possessed of reason, and not an in- 
fant." 1 

"Oh, llicn,.'i juvenile's goods and chattels cannot 
be kept for his little liotel bill? Another privilege 
gone forever with the haj)py days of childhood," 
said De Gex. 

"I am not quite so sure. In Kentucky, it was 
held that they could be, if the entertainment was 
furnislied in good faith, without tlie knowledge; that 
the youngster was acting impro])erly and contrary 
to the wishes of his guardian; and it was even held 
that the iinikeeper had a lien for money given to 
the boy and expended by him for necessaries," ^ I 

"I trust," said my companion, "that there is not 
very niucii more to be said on the subject. I feel 
that I am growing thin, and will soon require a lean- 
to to support me." 

"You are like the rest of the world, ingrato and 
thankless. Here I have been giving you freely of 
what has cost me long, weary hours of study and 
gallons of petroleum, and still you grumble. Only 
two points more would I endeavor to impress upon 
your memory, the knowledge of whicli may prove 
to be worth to you fully the cost of this drive of 



" Well, I will restrain myself and lend a listen* 

incr ear. 


"In the first place, if an innkeeper should retain 
your trunks for your hotel bill, you need pay hina 

l! ? 

I ■ 

1 Proctor V. Nicholson, 7 Car. & P. C7. 

2 Watson V. Cross, 2 Duv. (Ken.) 147. 





notliiiig for his troii!)le in taking caroof tbcm tlicrc- 
aftcr; when you nrc llusli ngjiin, you may call, and 
on paying the original amount due, demand your 
trapH.l In that way, you see, you may sometimes 
get rid of the trouble of carrying your baggage 
ahoiit with you. Then, again, whenever possible, 
travel in company, with all the baggage in one 
trunk; let tlic one who owns the trunk ])ay his 
bill, and then all may go on their way rejoicing ; 
for where a paterfamilias took his daughters to 
an hotel and the board of all was charged to the 
old man, (who afterward became insolvent) it was 
well decided that the trunks of one of the girls 
could not be detained for the whole amount due 
by the party. Every man for himself, seems to be 
the rule." 2 

"What are you two men gossiping about?" 
Fuddenly broke in Mrs. Lawyer, she and her com- 
panion having fully exhausted their stock of chit- 

"Gossiping!" saidDeGex; "no indeed; as Sir 
Boyle illoche would say, I deny the allegation, 
and defy the allegator." 

" None with a properly constituted mind would 
indulge in such a thing; for George Eliot well 
defines gossip to be ' a sort of smoke which comes 
from the dirty tobacco-pij^es of those who diffuse 
it,' and remarks that it proves nothing but the bad 
taste of the smoker," I added. 

1 Somes V. British Emp. Sh. Co. 8 H. L. Cas. 338; El. B. &E. 
353. But see, in cases of horses, p. 12!), 

2 Clayton v. Butterfield, 10 Rich. 423. 



Tlie ladies scomcr] conscience-stricken, for neitlier 
replied, and for some time we all sat in silence, en- 
joying the delicious coolness of eventide; each was 
busied in i)rivate castle-buildini', or " watcliiiiLT out 
the light of sunset, ;ind the o])ening of that bead- 
roll which some oriental poet describes as God's 
call to the little stars, who each answer, * Ileio 

r ., 






Suns risen and set ; moons liiul waxed and 
waned, and Mrs. Lawyer and myself were now 
settled in a boarding-house. I will not say com- 
fortably, fo.', aUhough never in my youth did I 
own a little hatchet, still I have read in my younger 
days the fifth chapter of the Acts of the Ai)ostlcs. 

My powers of description are exceedingly limited, 
so I will not attempt to sketch, for the benefit of 
my readers, either the house itself, its furnishings, 
its occuj>ants, or the entertainment provided as a 
quid j^ro their dollars. Of the furniture, I will only 
say that the carpet on the parlor floor " wms bediz- 
ened like a Kicaree Indian — all red chalk, yellow 
ochre, and cock's feathers." Of our fellow boarders, 
'tis sufiicient to remark that some, on one or two 
occasions, had, perhaps, worn kiil gloves ; most of 
the men were "self-made, whittled into shape with 
their own j;ick-knives"; the ladies — but de feminls 
nil nisi boaum. 

Of the food i)rovided for the inner man, need 
more be said than that the poultry, which appeared 
on the second day of our sojuurn, would have seemed 
to Mr. Bagnet's fastidious eye, suitable for Mrs. B.'s 
birthday dinner? If there be any truth in adages, 
they certainly were not canght by chaff. Every 
kind of finer tendon and ligament that it is in the 







nature of poultry to possess, was developed in 
these speeinicns in the singular form of guitar 
strings. Their limbs api)eared to have struck 
roots into their breasts and bodies, as aged trees 
strike roots into the eartli. Their legs were so 
liard as to encourage the idea that they must have 
devoted the greater part of their long and arduous 
lives to pedestrian exercises and the walking of 
matches. No one could have cleaned the drum- 
tticks without being of ostrich descent." 

Ab lino dlsce oniaes. l^Jjii jyede ILrculcm. From 
these three hints let eacli one, for himself, erect 
images of our boarding-house, our fellow-boarders, 
and our meals, as a Cuvier wouhl reconstruct a me- 
gatherium from a tooth, or an Agassiz draw a pic- 
ture of an unknown lish from a single scale. But 
I must not dip my pen in vinegar, nor tip it with 
wormwood, when I write of boardinij:-houses and 
their industrious and unfortunate keepers. These 
providers of food and lodging seem to be the de- 
scendants of Ishmael, their liand beini; asjrainst 
every one to eke out their little proiits, and every 
one's hand being against them. Let me be an 
honorable exception to the general rule, and act 
like the Good Samaritan, although, by the way, tliat 
worthy patronized a chea]) hotel, not a boarding- 

# # • # • 

It has ever been a hobby ot mine that a door — 
hall or otherwise — is intended to be shut (if not, a 
bole in the wall would answer every purpose and 
be cheaper). Well, one great source of trouble 



! ? 

; ( 



with mc at IMaflamo Dee's private board ing-h on se 
was that the clomestic-of-all-work was in the con- 
stant Iiabit of leaving the hall door ajar whenever 
she made her exit on to the street in lier hnnt for 
bntter, eggs, or milk. A fellow-boarder, seeing my 
anxiety on this 2K)int, asked me if I was afraid of 
some one stealing Mrs. Lawyer. 

" No," I replied, " I am more afraid of my over- 
coat. Althongh not very new, it is still servicea- 

" Well, sir," said a youthful reader of Blackstone 
and Story, " if any one feloniously and wickedly 
takes away your bad habit could you not deduct 
the value of it on your next week's settlement with 
Mrs. Dee? An innkeeper would be liable in such 
a case." 

"My dear young friend," I replied, "you have 
as yet acquired only the A 1> C of professional 
knowledge. Tiie liability of a boarding -house 
keeper for the goods of a boarder is by no means 
the same as that of an innkeeper." 

Here I paused, but the first speaker asked me 
to i)roceed and explain the difference, so I spako 
fiomewhat as follows: 

" Once upon a time Catherine Dansey went to 
the boarding-house of Elizabeth F. Kichardson 
with her luggage, and was duly received within 
the mansion. One day some of Mrs. Danscy's 
goods, chattels, or knick-knacks were stolen, and 
when the matter was investigated it appeared that 
the thief had entered through the front door — 
which had been left open by the servant — and that 



Mrs. Ricri.'irdson hncw tliat her Ci(l<ly was in the 
constant liabit of ne^lectincc to shut tlio door. 
Mrs. K. would not sottlo the affair amicably, so 
Mrs. D. liad the law of her.^ At the trial the judge 
told the jury that a boarding-house keeper was 
bound to take due and reasonable care about the 
safe-keeping of a guest's goods ; and then, it hav- 
ing struck his lordship that perliaps his twelve 
enlightened eountrynieu, A\ho sat before liiin in the 
box, did not know too well what due care niiglit 
be, he proceeded to explain to them that it was such 
care as a prudent housekeeper would take in the 
management of his own liouse for the protection of 
liis own goods. The judge went on to say that 
Mrs. Richardson's servant leaving the door open 
might be a want of sucli care, but the mistress was 
not answerable for such negligence, unless she lier- 
8clf had been guilty of some neglect (as in keeping 
such a servant with a knowledge of her habits). 
The jury, as in duty bound, took the law from his 
lordship and said that Dame R. was not liable." 

"Then Mrs. Dansey had to perform to the tune 
of a nice little bill of costs, .and grin and bear it," 
remarked the embrvo Coke. 

" Slie was ratlier stubborn about it, and applied 
for a new trial 



Did she get it?" asked Coke in ficturo. 

"No. Tlie wliole four judges gave it as their 

opinion that a boarding-house keeper is not bound 

to keep a guest's baggage safely to the same extent 

as an innkeeper, but that the law imi)lies an under- 

1 Dansey v. rticliardson, 3 Kl. & lU. 144. 




taking on his part to tal:e duo and proper care of 
the boarder's belonGriniis, akhouizih notliinur was said 
about it; and that nei^lecting to take due care of 
an outer door might be a breach of such duty." 

"]]ut did tiiey say what due and proper care 
amounted to?" was queried. 

"Yes; but, as doctors often do, they disagreed 
on the point. Judge Wightman coukl not see that 
a boarding-house keeper is a bailee of the goods of 
his guest at all, or that he is bound to take more 
care of them (when they are no further given into 
his care than by being in his house) than lie as a 
prudent man would take of his own. If he were 
guilty of negligence in tlie selection of his servants, 
or in keeping such as lie might well distrust, his 
lordship said that he could hardly be considered as 
taking the care of a prudent owner, and so might 
be liable for a loss occasioned by a servant's neg- 
lect. Erie, J., said that as there was no delivery of 
the goods by JMrs. D. to Mrs. R., no contract to 
keep them with care and deliver them again, and 
nothing i)aid in resj^ect of the goods, there was no 
duty of keeping them placed upon Richardson. 
Judge Coleridge and Lord Campbell looked at the 
case througl spectacles of another colo'* — the for- 
mer said that a guest at such a house is jntitled to 
due and reasonable care absolutely ; he comes to 
the house and pays his money for certain things to 
be rendered in return ; he stipulates directly with 
the master, having no control himself over the serv- 
ants, and having nothing to do with the master's 
judiciousness or care or good fortune in selecting 



t to 
LS no 
d to 
s to 
js to 

them; and the master undertakes to the guest not 
merely to be careful in the choice of his servants, 
but absolutely to t:ike duo and reasonable care of 
his goods. Lord Campbell said that he could not 
go so f:ir as to say that in no case can a boarding- 
house keeper be liable for the loss of goods tlirough 
the negligence of a servant, although he himstlf 
was guiltless of any negligence in hiring or keejv 
ing the domestic. If one employs servants to keep 
the outer door shut when there is danger of thieves, 
while they are performing that duty they arc acting 
within the scope of their employment, and he is 
answerable for their negligence. lie is not answer- 
able for the consequences of a felony, or even a 
willful trespass committed by them ; but the gen- 
eral rule is, that the master is responsible for the 
necclitjence of his servants while cm'ai'ed in offices 
which he employs them to do — and his lordship 
(for I have been quoting liis sentiments) said that 
he was not aware how the keeper of a board- 
inghouse could be an exception to the general 

I stopped here, and was rather chagrined to catch 
one of those present saying to another — 

" Do you remember what old Coates said about 
liis wife ? " 

uKo — what?" 

" 'M-Mrs. C-Coates is a f-funny old watch. She 
b-broke her chain a <j-orood while ai]i:o, and has bcxm 
r-running down ever since ; she must have a main- 
spring a mile long.' This is apropos of our friend 
here when he gets started on a legal point." 







"And lio is [ihvnys startiiiGj Bomo fiucli islioppy 
subject ; like Adelaido Proctor's young man — 

* IIo cracks no ogjj without a ]i)^a\ sigh, 
Isor cats uf beef but tbiuking ou the Liw,' " 

was the response wafted into the recesses of my 
auricular appendages — so chilling it was that I in- 
continently sneezed thrice. 

"There seems," said the student, "to have been 
a decided diversity of opinion among the learned 
judges in that case.'' 

"Yes, indeed," I replied. "But the point has 
been made clear in a more recent case, in which ; 11 
the judges took the same view of the extent of the 

" What was that decision, sir ? '* 

" That the law imposes no obligation on a lodging- 
house keeper to take care of the goods of his boarder. 
A lodger who was just about to change his quarters, 
was out of his room, and the landlord allowed 
a stranger to enter to look at it ; the latter carried 
off some of the boarder's property, and when the 
owner sued the landlord the court gave him to un- 
derstand that he must himself bear the loss. Earle, 
C. J., said that the judges had decided that even if 
the things had been stolen by a member of the 
household the proprietor would not be liable, lie 
went on to remark that he was most particularly 
averse to affirming, for the first time, that a lodging- 
house keeper has the duty cast upon him of takinj 
care of his guest's goods ; he saw great difficultiea 

1 Holder v. Soulby. 8 C. B. N. S. 254. 



in so holding, and thought it would be casting upon 
him an undefined responsibility whieh would be 
most inconvenient; considering that lodgers con- 
sist of all classes — from the hiixhest to the lowest — 
one could hardly exaggerate the mischief that would 
ensue from holding the proprietor liable. It would 
be impossible, his lordship continued, to lay down 
any definite test of liability; each case must be left 
to the discretion or caprice of a jury; the liability 
of the keeper of the house must vary according to 
the situation of the premises and a variety of cir- 
cumstances too numerous to mention. If, on the 
other hand, the law is that the lodger must take 
care of his own goods, it only imposes upon him the 
same care which he is bound to take when he walks 
the streets ; he may always secure his valuables by 
carrying them about with him, or by placing them 
six^cially in the custody of the keeper of the Jiouse." 

" But it appears rather hard to compel a man to 
carry his goods about with him wherever he goes, 
or else hand them over to the boarding-house keeper 
who mi2;ht be down in the kitchen cookiui^ dinner 
or washing cups and saucers ; besides, she or he 
might refuse to take care of them," captiously re- 
marked one of the company. 

" Notwithstanding all that, I have told you tho 
law correctly, and Byles, J., remarked once that a 
contrary decision would cast upon the proprietor 
' a frightful amount of liability,'" I replied. 

"Did the judges in the ca>e you just referred to 
say anything about the o^jen door case ? " ques- 
tioned the earnest inquirer after knowledge. 

i 1 



= '• 

!! y 

I I 

"Yes, and held that the wliolc tenor of the judg- 
ment in it was tliat a hoarding-house keeper is not 
bound to take sueli reasonable degree of care of the 
goods of his guest as a i)rudent man may reason- 
ably be expected to take of his own." 

"It seems strange," urged the youtli — by the way, 
a careless, lieedless young fellow was Im — " tliat 
such people should in no way be liable to look after 
the property of their boarders." 

" I did not say exactly that. Tliey are of course 
liable where a loss of a lodger's goods has resulted 
from gross negligence on their })art, or they theui- 
Belves have been guilty of some misdeed." ^ 

" Those two cases, I think," said one Avho had 
been a silent listener hitherto, " were both decided 
in England ; but what say our American judges ou 
the point ? " 

" So far as they have spoken," I replied, " they 
have, as a rule, corroborated and agreed with the 
sentiments of their ermined and bewiuri^ed fellows 
across the ocean. The Sui)reme Court of Tennessee 
decided that an innkeeper was not liable for the 
clothing of a boarder stolen from his room, without 
the former's fault, although he would be for that of 
a guest ; 2 and the judge gave as his i-eason for 
making the distinction that a passenger or way- 
faring man may be an entire stranger in the i)lace, 
and must put n[) and lodge at the inn to wliich his 
day's journey may bring him, and so it is important 
that he should be i)rotected by the most stringent 

1 Idem— Earle, C. J. 

2 Mauuing r. Wells, 9 Ilumpli. 74G. 



rules of law enforcing tlie liability of hotel-koopcrs; 
but as a boarder does not need sueli })n)t('('ti()n iho 
law does not afford it, and it is sufficient to give him 
a remedy when ho proves tlie innkeeper guilty of 
culpable neglect. And in Kentucky, where a regu- 
lar boarder at an hotel deposited gold willi the j)ro- 
prietor, who put it in his safe, into wliich lliieves 
broke and stole, the court held tliat tlie hotel- 
keeper was not liable as an innkeeper, but only as n, 
depositary without reward, and as no gro>-s negli- 
gence was shown the poor boarder failed in liis at- 
tempt to recover his lost casli in tliat wny.^ I liad 
better tell you, however, that in New York it lias 
very recently been held that a boarding-house 
keeper is liable for the loss of a boarder's property 
by theft, committea by a stranger allowed to enter 
the boarder's room by a servant of the house,- and 
that it is his duty to exercise such care over a board- 
er's goods as a prudent man would over his own." 

" Well, will you please tell me what is the differ- 
ence between a boarding-house and an inn ? " asked 
one of the other boarders. 

" It would afford me great pleasure to answer 
your question at another time, but at the i)resent I 
uri sorry to say that duty calls me an<l I must go." 

Leaving my listeners to digest the law lecture I 
had delivered to them, I repaired to the best jiar- 
lov, and there found Mrs. Lawyer and another lady 
in a state of white heat over the performances of a 

1 Johnson v. Pteynolds, .3 Ken. '2o7 See, also, Chamberlain 
V. Mast(!rsou, -0 Ala. 071. 

2 Smirb. V. rweed, G Daly, 33. 



I ^ 


! 2} 

I. i 

t ■ 













"'■' Hi 



boarder who occupied the next room — one of tho 
genus referred to by Coleridge when he suid, 

" Swans alu^ hoforo tlioy dio ; 'tworo no had thing 
Should certain persona dio before tlicy sing " — 

wlio was constantly carolling or trilling with a 
voice of the most rasping kind, or playing upon a 
most atrocious accordeon, to the discomfiture and 
annoyance of the other guests. 

"Can tliat man not bo made to keep quiet?" 
asked my wife. 

" Doubtless, my dear, if you would go and talk 
to him nvveetly, he would cease his songs and lay 
aside his wind instrument," I gallantly replied. 

" Don't tease me," she said. " Here we both have 
got sj^litting headaches through that horrid noise." 

" I thought from your manner you seemed a lit- 
tle cracked, my love ; what can I do?" I (pieried. 

"You ought to know — you are a lawyer; can't 
you make him stop?" 

" Well, really I don't know. I remember that in 
England a man had the constant ringing of a chime 
of bells in a neighboring chapel stopped on account 
of the annoyance and discomfort it caused him." i 

"I am sure that the noise of bells is as heavenly 
music compared to the infernal discords i)roduced 
by that man," remarked the other hidy, who, like 
Talmage's friend. Miss Stinger, was sharp as a 
hornet, prided herself on saying things that cut, 
could not bear the sight of a pair of pants, loathed 
a shaving a])paratus, and thought Eve would havo 

1 Soltan V. De Held, 2 Sim. N. S. 13a 



shown a better capacity for housekeeping if she 
liad — the first time hHc used her broom — swept 
Adam out of Paradise. 

" Yes, dear inadain, the noise of belles is often 
most delightful ; and the happiest day of my life 
was the one on which 1 was encraijcd in rincjjiuLr a 
sweet village belle, who shall be nameless," I re- 
plied, knowing that the lady hated everything likj 
gallantry, and I politely waved my hand towards 
Mrs. L., who exclaimed : 

"You stupid, you! Tell me directly what wc 
can do ! " 

" In the English case I mentioned, the man got 
an injunction from the Court of Chancery to re- 
strain the noise; but in another case in North Car- 
olina,^ where a most pious member of a Methodist 
church was indicted for disturbing divine service 
by singing in such a way that one part of the con- 
gregation laughed, and the other i:)art got mad — • 
the irreligious and frivolous enjoyed it as fun, 
"while the serious and devout were indii^nant — al- 
though the jury found the man guilty, the court 
reversed the verdict, as the brother did not desire 
to disturb the worship but was religiously doing 
his best. So here our i)Oor neighbor is doing what 
he can to produce a ' concord of sweet sounds.' On 
another occasion, the judges in the same State held 
that the noise of a drum or life in a procession was 
not a nuisanco.2 But then the wearers of the er- 
mine in that State seem almost indifferent to sounds 

1 State V. Liukbam, G'J N. C. 214. 

2 State V. Hughes, 73 N. C. 23. 

1 * 

i I 



of any kind ; for about the sanic time, tliey deeided 
that j)rofane swearing was not a niiisanee, unless it 
was loud and lonu: eontinued."i 

"What had we better do?" persisted Mrs. Law- 
yer. " Either lie must leave, or we must bid good- 
bye to these premises.'' 

" Get the landlady to give him notice to quit ; 
then if he won't go peaceably, she can bundle him 
out neck and crop."^ 

" !She will i)romise to do so, and that will be tho 
end of it, ' said the acidulous lady. 

'• In iSIassachusetts, where a lodger was disturbed 
by the lodger in the room below singing hymns by 
no means of the Moody & Sankey style, and tho 
landlord jiromised to get the musician out, but 
failed to do so, the Supreme Court held tluit the 
aggrieved boarder could not insist u})on a diminU' 
tion of his weekly bills on account of the disagree- 
able singing.3 But, my dear, will you come and 
take a, walk with me?" 

Olf we started countrywards, and walked. 

When we were returiiin<jf, it was dark and late. 

'' The night air was soft and balmy ; the night odors 
sweet and soul-entrancing ; there were no listeners 
save the grasshoi)i)ers and the night-moths with 
folded wiuij^s amouir the llower-beds of the cottaijes, 
and no on-lookers save the silent stars and jewxded- 
eyed frogs ui)on the i)ath staring at us " with all 
their might and main. So we gossiped until we 

1 State V. Powell, 70 N. C. G7. 

2 Newton v. lIiiriuiKl, I M. & G. G44. 
8 De Witt r. ricrsou, 112 Mass 8. 




entered the* city once asjain, ami then tlic odors 
changed ; listeners and lookers-on hecanie nnnier- 
ous ; the stars were eclipsed hy llaming g.'is ; the 
frogs gave jilaco to gaping gamins. 

--K> # # * * # 

As it li.'is to he mentioned, and there is no reason 
>vhy it should not be mentioned just here, I may 
state (as a hint to those who keep hoarders) that 
Judge Coleridge once remarked that it" a l)oarding- 
liouse keeper neglected to give a boarder a dry bed 
or "wholesome food, and in consecpienee thereof the 
latter became sick, it could not be doubted but that 
the landlord nught be compelled to make compen. 
sation in damages to the sufferer. His lordship 
also went on to say, in effect, that if the White 
Ilart Inn, Iligh-street, Borough, bad been a board- 
ing-house, and Sam Weller had given the wooden 
leg of nund)er six to thirteen, and the pair of Hes- 
sians of thirteen to number six ; or the two i)airs 
of halves of the commercial to the snuggery inside 
the bar, and the painted tops of the snuggery to 
the connnercial, so that any of tliosc worthies had 
been damnified, then the bustling old landlady of 
that establishment would have had to comfort her 
guests in a more substantial manner than she did 
when she titillated the nose of the spinster aunt.^ 

i ; 

iDans'^v V. rJcbardson, 3 El. & 13. 144. 

Chapter X. 





AGr.'iin it was iiiLjlit. All the boarders wore fis^ 
soniblcd around llio tea-table ; not exactly, liowcver, 
as Dr. Talinago would Avlsb, for he said that you 
should be seated wide enough apart to liavc room 
to take out your handkerchief if you want to cry 
at any i)itiful sto^y, or to spread yourself in laugli-^ 
terif someone propound an irresistible conun(b*um. 

The tea was none of that good old stuff that 
once brought 850 a pound, but some of the adub 
terated mixture, thirty million pounds of which 
Uncle Sam, Aunt Columbia and their little ones, 
pour annually into their saucers and empty into 
their mouths. 

" N"ow, then, Mr. Lawyer," said iny friend Mr. 
Jim Crax, as the bread and butter, tea and toast 
were fast disa]ipearing off the table on to the cliairs, 
"kindly redeem your promise, and tell us the differ- 
ence between a boarding-house keeper and an ho- 
tel-keeper; that is, the difference in law — we all 
know the practical differences only too well." 

After a preliminary hem and haw, I began as 
follows: "It miii-lit be as well to sav, in thf» first 
l)lace, that a bonrding-liouse is not in common par- 
lance, or in legal meaning, every j^rivate house 
where one or n^ore boarders arc occasionally kept 
upon special considerations; but is a </«rt5/-])ublio 

C106 3 



liousc, wlicre boarders arc generally and habit- 
ually received as a matter of business, and which 
is held out to the public and known as a ])lace 
of entertainment of that kin<l.l The chief dis- 
ti nction between a boardinfj^-house and an inn, and 
the one from which all others naturally Ihjw, is 
that the keeper of a boarding-house can cho(^se his 
own guests, admitting some and i*eje<'ting others, as 
to him in his discretion or accordiuLf to his whims 
and luunors m;iy seem best; while an innke('[)er is 
obliged to entertain all travelers of good conduct, 
and i)Ossessed of means of ]>ayment, who choose 
to stop at his house, and those wlio do stay he must 
provide with all they have occasion for while on 
their way." - 

"That seems ratlicr hard on the innkeeper." 
" No: lie is compensated by having greater priv- 
ileges tluin his hundjler brotlier ; and sncli a rule ii 
necessary for the welfare and convenience of the 
traveling public, who cannot be exi)ected, in the 
hurry of journeyings, to stop and liunt through a 
town for a night's lodging, making a special bargain 
with the keeper of the house. A lodging-houso 
keeper makes a special contract with every man 
that comes to him, whereas an innkeeper is bound, 
without any particular agreement, to provide lodg' 
ing and entertainment for all who come to him, at 
a reasonable price.^ In the o ne cas e the guest is 
entertained on an implied contract from day to day; 

iCndy r. McDowell. 1 Lans. (\. V.) 484. 
"ruikcrtou r. 'NVoiHlwanl, ;'.;i('al. Tm;. 
aXhompsuu v. Lacy, .". Dam. c^ Adol. 283 




' ti 








in llic otluT, tliorc is an express contract for a cer- 
tain time at a certain rate." l 

"Bnt snrely," said Jim Crax, "oftentimes a defi- 
nite ai^reenient to board is made witli an hotel- 

'" Of course, I know tliat," I rcpli.>d. " But, tlien, 
if lie does so on tlie arrival of liis guest lie loses 
the rights and })i-ivileges as well as the liabilities of 
his order; althongh an arrangement as to the price 
only, after one has become a guest, will not have 
that effect.2 And it has been held tliat a public 
hotel at a watering jdace possessing medicinal 
S})rings, and opened only during the summer and 
fall f(»r the accommodation of visitors in search of 
health .and j)leasure, is, in fact, only a bonrding- 
hous(^, the visitors not being guests for a d.'iy, night, 
or week, but lod-jcrs or boarders for a season."*^ 

" Wliat," said the landladv's dautrhter, who was 
anixlimr for the vouno^ law htudent and so tried 
to season her generally frivolou-^ conversation with 
an occasional semi-sensible remark <»r question, 
"What are the pri\jleges of an innkeeper which a 
boarding-lioiise keeper does not enjoy? The right 
to charge $5 per day ? " 

••' Their right of lien. You, of course, know what 
that is?" I replied. 

"Oh, certainly," she answered, though she no 
more knew what it meant than I do the hiero- 
glyphics on Cleopatra's Needle. 

1 Willanl V. Reinh:irclt, 2 E. D. Smith, 148. 
- Wliarton on Innkeepers, 123. 

31>euner v. Welburn, 7 Ga. 2t)G, 307; Soutliwood f . Myers, 
3 IjUsIi, G81. 

T a, cer- 

=> a defl- 
i liott'l- 

it, then, 

10 loses 

lities of 

lie price 

ot have 

I public 


ncr and 

earch of 


y, night, 

ho was 
o tried 
)n with 
which a 
10 right 

w what 

she no 




"I don't," said a ladv with cjreater lionestv. 
"But i)ray, don't attempt to deiino it. I never try 
to find out the meaning of a word since I once 
lookoil in Johnson's dictionary and found that net- 
work was 'anythiii!' reticulated or decussated with 
interstices between the intersections.' " 

"I thought that the proprietor of a boarding- 
house also had the right of detaining the goods of 
their lod'jrcrs for their charGjes," remarked the seed- 
iest of tlie company who looked as if he had had 
practical experience in such matters. 

"Not generally; although in some States the 
legislatures have conferred the right upon them to 
the same extent as an innkeeper has at common 
Liw. This they liave, for instance, in New York, 
New IIam})shire, and Wisconsin ;i and in Connec- 
ticut they have not only the right to retain the 
property until the debt is paid, but in case of non- 
payment they can sell it to recouj) themselves after 
a certain time." 2 

" Suppose," said the student, " as is the case here, 
one who keeps boarders occasionally entertains 
travelers for a night or so — would she be considered 
an hotel-keeper in respect to those stray sheep?" 

"No," I replied. 

"IIow would it be if a man agreed to go to a 
board incc-ho use and then backetl out and went else- 
where?" asked my vis-a-vis at the table. 





1 Stewart v. iMcCready, 24 IIow. Pr. G2; Jones v. IMerrill, 42 
Barb. G23; Cross u. AVilkius, 4li N. II. oU2; Nichols v. lloUi- 
day, 21) Vis. 40(5. 

iJ Brooks V. Harrison, 41 Conn. 184. 




if i 

h 'I 

■ il-i 



! I 




Well, where a man of the name of Stewart 
accreed by word of mouth with one who took hoard- 
ers to pay £100 a year for the board and lodging 
of himself and servant and the keep of his horse, 
and then failed to take up his rpiarters at the Innise, 
the eourt considered that the bargain was not a 
contract concerninu: land within the Statute of 
Frauds and so did not require to be in Avriting, 
and that Stewart was liable to pay for the breach 
of his .agreement. " 1 

"What is that in front of you, sir?" was queried 
of me. 

" Pork chops, apparently," I replied. " Will you 
take one ? " 

" No, thanks ; I am a Jew as far as pork is con- 
cerned. In fact, although not so bad as Marshal 
d'Albert, who Avas always taken ill whenever he 
saw a roast sucking-})ig, I am like the celebrated 
Guianerius — pork always gives me a violent palpi- 
tation of the heart." 

" 'Tis curious what antipathies some peo])le have 
to particular kinds of food. I have read of a man 
who was always seized with a fit when he tried to 
swallow a piece of meat," said a Mr. Knowall. 

" Nature evidently intended him for a vegeta- 

" I have heard of another who was made ill if he 
ever ate any mutton," continued the gentleman ; 
"and of a man w lio always had an attack of the y:out 
a few hours after eating iish. In fact, the celebrated 
Erasmus could not smell fish without being thrown 

1 Wright V. Stewart, 20 Law J. Q. li. iGl. 






(1 to 


if he 
lan ; 


II ted 

into a fever; Count d'Annstadt never f;iile(l to <jo 
off in a faint if lie knowingly or unknowingly j)ar- 
touk of any dish containing the slightest inodieuni 
of <dive oil: the learned 8cali<_cer would shudder in 
cveiy limb on Ijeholding WMter-eresses ; and Vla- 
disiaus, of Poland, would lly at the sight of ap- 

"I read once of a ladv who, if she ventured to 
taste lobster saLad at a dancing party, would, before 
she couhl return to the ball-room, be covered with 
iigly blotches and her peace of mind destroyed for 
that evening," I remarked. 

" The whole question of food is an interesting 
one," said Mr. Knowall. 

"Do you mean with regard to the sumptuary 
laws of other days?" qneried the law student. 

"Yes. You remember that in the davs of the 
Plantaojenets the Houses of Parliament solemidv 
resolved that no man, of wdiat state or condition 
soever he might be, siiould have at dinner or sup- 
])er, or any other time, more than two courses, and 
each of two sorts of victnal at the utmost, be it of 
flesh or fish, with the common sorts of potage, 
without sauce or any sort of victuals. And the 
eating of llesh of any kind during Lent and on 
Fridays and Satmvlays, was punished by a iiiu^ of 
ten shillings, or imprisonment for ten days ; ^ and 
in the days of Queen Bess the fine was increased to 
i!3 and the term of imprisonment to three months; 
but if anv one had three dishes of sea-fish on his 
table he miii'ht have one of flesh also." ^ 


1 2 uDd ;; Edw. VI, chap. 19. 25 £i\z, diap. 5, sec. lo. 

■3 if I 
'.Jiff « 





" "Did Elizabeth do this from any religious mo- 
tivc ? " asked a young divine. 

*' Oil, dear, no. The statute expressly says that 
the eating of fish is not necessary for the saving of 
the soul of man. In the days of bluff old King 
Hal, Arclibishop Cranmer commanded that no cler- 
gyman should have more than three blackbirds in a 
pic unless he was a bishop and then he might have 
four, but he allowed himself and liis brother of 
York to have six.'* 

" When then, pray, did the fashion of having 
* four-and-twenty blackbirds baked in a i)ic ' come 
into vogue?" asked my wife, who had a good 
memory for infantile rhymes. 



Chapter XL 


*'2)e gustlbus non est disputandum ^'' was origi- 
nally observed by Ji in;in of sense, however many 
blockheads may since have repeated it ; and as my 
tastes in the matter of comestibles did not harmo- 
nize with those of the several respectable boarding- 
lumse keej)ers beneath whose roofs we successively 
took shelter, it was settled in a committee of the 
whole family that JMrs. Lawyer and myself should 
take furnished apartments in a genteel street, or a 
furnished house — that Mrs. L. should be appointed 
Commissary-General, with one Bridget or Biddy 
O'Callaghan as Deputy-Act ing-xVss^istant Commis- 
sary-General under her, while I should continue to 
hold the responsible post of Paymaster-General to 
the entire force. 

In due time, after a considerable reduction in our 
stock of the virtue of patience and of the thickness 
of the soles of our boots, a suitable suite of rooms, 
furnished in a style agreeable to our ta^te, in a lo- 
cality not objectionable and at a rate proportionate 
to the depth or rather shallowness of my pocket, was 
discovered and ;ill necessary ariangemenis made 
with the landlord. 

To avoid a^l possibility of future disputations 
with the owner, (and especially as a contract to let 
lodgings is a contract concerning an interest in land 






14 «■ 

witliin the monnlnc^ of that celebrated troublesome 
Btatute passed in the twcntv-uinth vear of his ras- 
cally majesty, Charles II, and entitled "an aet for 
the prevention of frauds and |>erjurics," and so must 
be in writinu:,!) I determined to follow the good ad- 
vice of Mv. Woodfall, and have our Jii^reement re- 
duced to black and white. My instructions to my 
clerk in i)re])aring the document were, to specify 
the amount of rent, the time of entry, the len^^th of 
notice to quit required and such other jjurticulars 
as the nature of the case rendered requisite, and to 
have a, list of the goods and chattels in the aj)art- 
ments ailixed. 

Alas, 1 found the truth of the old adage, that a 

lawver who acts for himself has a well, not a 

Solomon — for his client. An unexpected event, 
however, saved me. The very evening before we 
were to enter into our new abode a bailiff, on be- 
half of the real owner, for my acquaintance had 
but a lease of the jJace, visited the house and 
seized a part of the furniture for rent overdue ; 
luckily none of my personal belongings had been 
taken in — if there had been any of them they, too, 
would have been liable to distress for the rent. I 
had stupidly neglected to inquire whether the taxes 
or the rent of the house were ])aid u]), and whether 
they were likely to be kept so.^ Of course I knew 
that if I had at that particular period of my exist- 
ence chanced to hav? been living in New England, 

s |.l 

. t 

1 Woodfall, Landlord and Tenant. But seo Wright r. Stew- 
art, OJiir. N. S. 81 ;7. 

- Woodfall, Landlord and Tenant. But see "Wright v. Stew- 
art, C) Jur. N. S. 8G7. 



or ill Nl'W York Stato, or in some of the other 
States of tlie Union, I eonhl not Inive been trou1)le(l 
if in that lionse, as the power of distress exists in 
those places no h)ntjjer;l Init M'e were in a State in 
wliiclj it is still retained, or at least was then. 

When I tohl my wife of the narrow escape we 
had had she asked me if I had ever made incpiiiies 
as to whether the landlonls of the hotels at which 
wc stayed were in arrcar for rent. 

"No," 1 replied; '• the rule is different in respect 
to Iiotels." 


"For the benefit of trade; otherwise Imsiness 
could not be carried on at all." 

"But what would we have had there except my 
cat and bird, our clothes, and your books?" nrged 
Mrs. L. 

"Nothing more would have been wanted." 

"Could they have taken our clothes? I thought 
all such things were excMupt." 

"Generally speaking, they are from seizure for 
debt ; but not from distress for rent, unless they 
are in actual use at the time. In 1700 Mr. liavnes, 
who had furnished lodgings at half a guinea a week, 
was two months in arrear, and a bailiff api)eared 
upon the scene and took his wearin;.' api)arel and 
that of Mrs. B., although i)art of it was actually in 
the wash-tub at the time ; and Lord Kenyon said it 
was all riiiht.-^ The same lud'jfe decided in another 
case that a landlord could legally take the clothes 

i '' I 




S 1 

i ,5 

1 Parsons on Contracts, vol, 1, p. 517. 
213ayues v. Smitli, 1 Esx). liOG. 

• i 


CUA1;M3 of furnished AlUULMliNTS. 


fif ! 


beluiighig to a in.'in\s wifo aiul cliildrcn, while they 
— tlie 'clotlies screens,' as Carlyle calls tliein — not 
the clothes — were in bed, altlioui^h the bipeds in- 
tended to put them on in the morning, and had been 
daily in the habit of wearing them, on the ground 
that they were not in actual use.^ Jjut Kenyon, my 
dear, sometimes said absurd things. For instance, 
once, when indignant at the delay of an attorney, 
Le exchiimed, wrathfully, 'This is tlie last hair iu 
the tail of procrastination.'" 

"The law seems very hard. Why, that poor 
"woman would have to stay in bed. But talking of 
tails, could they have taken my cat — my beauti- 
ful i^ussy?" said Mrs. Lawyer, looking over where 

Tho cat's (lark silhouette on the wall, 
A Goucliant tiger's seemed to fall. 

" Well — ah — in Coke upon Littleton it is said, 
no; but the reason given is that cats are things in 
which no man can have an absolute and valuable 
i:)roperty; and that reason might not be a[)plicablo 
to tho case of a costly Angora like yours, and you 
know, ccssante ratlonc cessat ct 'qysa lexj but your 
bird might have been taken." 2 

"It seems strange that tlie landlord can take tho 
l)ro])erty of other people to pay his tenant's debts." 

" It does ; and in many ])arts of this country only 
the goods of the de))tor can be taken,3 and the 
judges are generally inclined to deliver the lodger 

iBisset r. Caldwell, 1 Esp. 200, n. 
2^Voodfall, Landlord and Tenant, 0S4. 
8 Parsons on Contracts, vol. 1, ji. 518. 




from tlio claws of llio laiidlonl; an<l no it Iims licon 
held that wliilo the goods of nu assigiu-o of tlio 
tenant arc liahlo, tlioso of a nicro inidir-tcnatit aro 
not ;i and la England, of lato years, an act lias liccn 
passed for the protection of the lodger's goods from 
the claims of the landlord for rent due him hy his 
immediate tenant."^ 

"But if our things had been taken to pay the 
rent, could we not have made the other hoarders 
contribulo their share?" 

" No, I am afraid not," ^ I answered. 

# # « « # 

Our intended rooms being now somewhat de- 
nuded of their necessary furnishings we arranged 
with our landlord-about-to-be to sen<l in all neces- 
sary articles within a reasonable time. Unfortu- 
nately, however, this new arrangement was not em- 
bodied in our written agreement; so I found out — 
when too late — that our landlord (a man of the eel 
kind) was not bound to put in the furniture. If it 
liad been in writing, it would tlien have formed an 
inseparable part of the contract, and the man 
could not have obtained his rent until he had done 
his duty.^ 

We had scarcely got settled in our new quarters 
before we discovered that our rose possessed a 
thorn or two. The morning after our arrival, we 

1 Archer v. Wotherell, 4 Hill ( X. Y. ) 112. 

2 3-1 and 35 Vict. chap. 7'J ; riiillipa v. Ilcnson, L. 11. 3 C 
r. D. 2G. 

3 Iliiiitcr V. Hunt, 1 Com. T>. :w' 

^ Mccheleu r. Wallace, 7 Ad. & E. 40 ; Vaughan v. Han- 
cock, 3 Com. li. 7GG. 



^ A 





.f" 14 










o% • ;» 






(716) 872-4503 







^ <. ^^ 





m \ 


ciia:;m3 of furnished apautments. 

I I 


were honored with llic visit of a choleric gent, 
who informed us that lie occupied tlie rooms on 
tlic flat below aiul that our water jjipes had leaked 
through and damaged irreparal^ly some of his 
property. I am thankful, however, to say that I 
was able to point out to him that the defects in the 
pipe could not have been detected without exami- 
nation ; that as we did not know of them, and had 
not been guilty of any negligence, we were not 
liable for the damage which he had unfortunately 
sustained, there being no obligation upon us to 
keep — at our peril — the water in the pipe.^ 

We next had trouble about a stovepipe wdiich 
had to pass through another person's room. When 
wo began to put it up our neighbor threatened to 
take it down and stop up the hole; but knowing 
that as there had been a ])ipe through his room be- 
fore the surly fellow moved in he only had the 
room subject to the easement of the stovepipe and 
hole,2 J remained firm and steadfast, and finally won 
a way for the obnoxious, black, cylindrical smoke- 
conductor, and we hoped to hear the kettle sing 
merrily, and the pots bubble, and si)irt, and boil in 
peace, if not in quietude. 

But our triumph was not for long. Barely was 
the stove in full blast when the boiler attached ex- 
ploded with a terrific uproar. Considerable dam- 
age was done; my wife was clamorous that I should 
at once interview the landlord, especially as we 
thought that the accident could not have haj)pened 

iRoss V. Fcdden, 7 Q. B. mi. 

2Culverwell v. Lockington, 24 C. P. (Ont. Gil. 

CHARM;5 of furnished APAIITMENTS. 


c gent, 
o?ns oil 
of Iiis 
that I 
! in the 
»(1 Iiad 
re not 
lis to 

ed to 
t71 bc- 
-1 the 
) and 
'il in 


had there been a safety-valve to the boiler ; but I 
said that it would be useless to talk about it unless 
we could prove that he knew of tlie defect, or had 
reason to suspect it, or that damage was to be ajv 
prehcnded from ihe use of the boiler lor the pur- 
pose for which it was intended ; ^ although on one 
occasion the courts held a landlord liable for inju- 
ries arising from the explosion of gas, caused by 
the i>ipes in the tenant's room not having beeu 
l)roperly secure«1.2 

In the afternoon it began to rain in the style 
commonly called " cats and dogs," or " pitchforks," 
and soon we heard pit — pit — pit, patter — patter — 
patter, spit — spit — spit, spatter — spatter — spatter, 
sounding nearer than the dripping outside would 
seem to warrant, and on investigation we found 
that the rain was comiuix throu'^h the roof and 
dropping down in ugly si)lashes upon one of our 
most handsome and costly volumes. 

"Can we make the landlord i)ay for the damage 
done by his old leaky roof?" asked my wife, as 
with her best cambric handkerchief she tried to 
swab up the wet. 

" I fear me not. T remember Baron Martin say- 
ing that one who takes a floor in a house must be 
held to take the i)remises as they are, and cannot 
complain that the house was not constructed dif- 
ferently. This storm may have blown off some 
shingles, and then, even if our landlord is bound to 
use reasonable care in keeping the roof secure, he 


1 Jaffe r. nartcau, m N. Y. TOS. 

2 Kiiumell V. Burlieud, 2 Daly (X. Y.), 155. 



I I 

cannot be held responsible for what no reasonable 
care and vigilance could liave provided against. 
He cannot certainly bo considered guilty of negli- 
gence if he lias caused the roof to bo examined 
2)eriodically, and if it was all secure the last time it 
was looked at.^ Still, in New York State it was 
decided that where a landlord, who himself occu- 
l^ied an upper flat, allowed liquids to leak through 
into his tenants' rooms, ho was liable/'*' 

"I should think, indeed, that a man should keep 
his house in repair, so that his tenants' goods are 
not ruined," indignantly said Mrs. Lawyer. 

"You may say that, but the law says quite the 
reverse. It is pe rfectly cle ar that a landlord is not 
bound to do any repairs, however necessary^ they 
may be, except such as he personally agrees to do. 
The law will not imply any contract of that sort on 
his part. That was decided in a case where largo 
gaps opened in the main walls, and it took several 
hours ot hard ])umi)ing daily to keep the water out 
of the basement. 3 

"In New Hampshire, I admit, it has been held 
that where a landlord nrgligently constructs liis 
building, c r negligently allows it to continue out of 
rejiair, he is liable for injuries to his tenants ;* and 
in New York the rule is said to be that when build- 
ings are in good repair when leased and afterward 

1 Carstairs v. Taylor, L. R. G Ex. 223. 

2 Stapcnhurst r. Am. Man. Co. 15 Abb. Pr. X. S. 355; Siinon- 
ton V. Lorinf?, (i8 Me. I(i4. 

3 Ardcii r. I'uUcn, 10 Mees. & "SV. 321; Keates v. Cadojran, 
10 (^ D. rm : Cottr. Gaudy, 2 El. & I). 845; Wiltz v. Matthews, 
52 N. Y. 512; Taffo r. Ilarteau, 50 N. Y. 308. 

< Scott V. Simons, 54 N. II. 42G. 



I ngainst. 

of ncgli- 
St time it 
e it was 
elf occu- 


lid keep 
3otIs aro 


uito tho 

•(1 is not 

iiy^IIicy ^ 

's to do. 

sort on 

e large 


Iter out 

n held 
cts his 
out of 
* and 



become ruinous and dangerous, llie owi or is not 
responsible unless he has expressly agreed to re- 
pair." ^ 

" Surely, then, one has not to pay rent when a 
liouse is in such a wretchc'd state? I suppose we 
are not bound to stay here." 

"Yes, to both your queries. Tho only cases in 
which a tenant has been permitted to withdraw 
from his tenancy and refuse payment of rent are 
where there has been some error or fraudulent mis- 
description of the premises, or where fhey have 
been found to bo uninhabitable in consequence of 
the wrongful act or default of the landlord him- 
self ;2 and it is not perfectly clear that he can do 
BO even then.^ But I must go out for the present, 
my dear. Fare tiiee well." 

In the hall down stairs I met Mr. Screwhard, our 
landlord, a gentleman who, from his personal ap- 
pearance, would have accumulated a large fortune 
as an undertaker ; for from his countenance you 
could no more have coaxed a smile than you could 
have out of a looker. As I was bidding him a hur- 
ried "Good morning,'* he placed his body, so long, 
so lean, and so straight that you might have taken 
it for a t<degraph pole in consumption, l>t'fore me, 
and said, in tones which would have well become 
the ghost in Hamlet — 

"You must be in by nine o'clock, sir ; we lock 
the front door then." 

1 Clancy v. Byrne, 5r. N. Y. 120. 
2Izou V. Gorton, 5 Binj?. N. C. 501; 7 Scott, 537. 
8 Surplice v. Farns worth, 7 M. & Q. 57(3. 



*' Gammon I " said I; "you will liavi' to unlock 
it, then, to let me in ; for when you rented me the 
rooms you im})liedly granted all that was necessary 
for their free use and full enjoyment, such as the use 
of the liall and. stairs whenever re(|aircd, and not 
only when you choose." ^ 

" I will yield to your wishes for this nii^ht oidy," 
said Screwhard, in a voice as soU'inn as if lu' were 
about to be cremated; "but mind, rap with your 
knuckles on the door; in time your wife will hear 
and can let you in, for I must be allowed to have 
unbroken slumbers ; my health demands that most 

'• Stuff and nonsense ! " I rei)lied ; " I have a 
right to use the bell and the knocker, as nothing 
was said to the contrary before ; ^ and I shall use 

And impatient with the old fellow 1 passe<l on, 
saying to myself : " The man must be a fool. An 
action will lie against him if he attempts to inter- 
fere with our use of the ii"cessary adjuncts of liis 
furnished apartments. To be sure if we were bad 
tenants, he might, in mitigation of damages, show 
that he acted so to make us leave.3 But we have 
not been long enough for that." 

Apollo stayed not his iiery steeds in their down- 
ward career towards the liappy isles of the west 
that day, and PhoBbus' sickly-looking sister held 
sway in high heaven wlien I agahi reached the door 

1 Maclennan v. Royal Ins. Co. 39 Q. B. (Ont.) 515. 

2 Underwood v. Burrows, 7 Car. & P. 20. 
8 Idem. 




1 ma ihu 
is the use 

and not 

It only," 
he were; 

itii your 

vill hoar 
to have 

lat most 

have .'I 
liall use 

<se<l on, 
oi. Au 
o inter- 
s of jiis 
L're bad 
s, show 
e have 

e west 
r lield 
le door 


of my nevr domicile. With mc was Tom Jones, 
who was anxious to see the rooms. Mrs. Lawyer 
received us in the parlor with a face full of disgust, 
and after the interchange of a word or two with 
Tom, calling me aside, made the horrid announce- 
ment that our bedrooms were fully occupied by ani- 
mals of a small size, broad for their length, darkish 
in color, scented, anthropoi»hagous, and designated 
by the same letters as very dark drawing j>encils. 

I di -closed the fact to T. J., who, being somewhat 
of a naturalist, might, I thought, be able to i>rescribc 
some cure for this new found evil. lie at once ex- 
claimed : 

" I tell you what, old fellow, some scientific folks 
say that these creatures always retire from public 
life to their own quarters about midnight. Test the 
point. You tumble into bed at once, and I will en- 
deavor to entertain Mrs. Lawyer until twelve, and 
will call in the morning to hear the result of the 

"You're very kind, I am sure. But I am always 
willing to share things equally with my wife ; be- 
sides, when two are in bed the creepers lose time 
in deciding which to bite, so one can get occasional 
naps. To-morrow we will quit," I re[)lied. 

" But can you give up your lodgings in that sum- 
mary manner ? " 

"Lonix since it was decided that where a m:m 
rents ready furnished houses or lodgings and they 
are infested by bugs, the tenant may leave without 
paying rent. Baron Parke, in giving judgment 
said that the authorities appeared fully to warrant 


.1 ■ 


f\ I li 



the position tliut if the demised premises are encum- 
bered with a nuisance of so serious a nature that no 
person can reasonably be expected to live in them, 
the tenant i-; at liberty to throw them up. And he 
said that this was so because of the imi)lied condi- 
tion that the landlord undertakes to rent the jdace 
in an habitable state. Lord Abinger, in tlie same 
case, went even further, and gave it as his opinion 
that no authorities were wanted to establish the 
jioint, and that the case was one which common 
sense alone enabled them to decide. A man, he re- 
marked, who lets a ready furnished house, surely 
does so under an implied condition, or obligation, 
that the house is in a lit state to be inhabited. His 
lordship had no doubt whatever on the subject, and 
thought that tenants under such circumstances were 
fully justified in leaving." i 

"But have not other equally learned judges had 
very grave doubts upon the subject V" queried 

*' Well, I must confess that later cases have 
somewhat shaken the authority of the one I have 
been referring to, and it has been held that there is 
no implied warranty in a lease of a house, or of 
land, th It it is or shall be reasonably fit for habi- 
tation, occupation, or cultivation, and that there is 
no contract, still less any condition, implied by law 
on the demise of real property only that it is fit 
for the purpose for which it is let." 2 

1 Smith V. Marrable, 11 Mees. & "W. 5; Add. on Con. 376-6. 

2 Hart V. Windsor, 11 Mees. & W. G8 ; Sutton v. TempJo, 
Ibid. 57 ; Scarlo v. Laverick, Law R. 9 Q. B. 131 ; McGlasliam 
V. Tallmadge, 37 Barb. 313. 


cnARMS OP ruRNisnEn apaiitment3. 


*'Does not that put an extinguisher on the au- 
thority you cited?" said Jones. 

"No; in sjmc of these hitter decisions the case 
of a ready furnished house is expressly distinguished 
upon the ground that the letting of such a liouse is 
a contract of a mixed nature, being in fact a bar- 
gain for a liouse and furniture, which, of necessity, 
must be such as are lit for the i)urpose for whicii 
they arc to be used. Abinger was particuhirly 
strong on the point. lie said that 'it* a ])arty con- 
tract for tlie lease of a house ready furnished, it is 
to be furni>hed iu a proper manner, and so as to be 
fit for immediate occupation. Suppose,' said he, 
*it turn out that tliere is not a bed in the house; 
surely the party is not bound to occupy it or con- 
tinue iu it. So, also, iu the case of a liouse infect- 
ed with vermin ; if bugs be found in the bed, even 
after entering into possession, the lodger or occu- 
pier is not bound to stay in the house. Suppose 
again,' he continued, 'the tenant discover that 
there are not sufficient chairs in the liouse, or that 
they are not of a sort fit for use: he may give 
up possession.' ^ And so late as April of the year 
of grace 1877, Lord C. B. Kelly said that he was 
of the opinion, both on authority and on general 
principles of law, that there is an implied condition 
that a furnished house shall be iu a good and ten- 
antablc state and reasonably fit for human occupa- 
tion from the very day ou which the tenancy is 
dated to begin, and that where such a house is iu 
such a condition that there is either great discom- 

1 Hart V. Windsor, tvpra. 



1 ii 

li )i 






fort or (lanc^cr to healtli in ontcriiiL; and dwelling 
in it, then tlic intending tenant is entitled to repu- 
diate the contract altogether." I 

"Well, that is strong, T am sure.'* 

" Ahinger held that the letting of the go(»ds and 
chattels, as well as the house, implies that the i)arty 
who lets it Fo furnished is under an ohligation to 
supply the other contracting party with whatever 
goods and chattels may be lit for the use and occu- 
pation of such a house according to its particular 
description and suitable in every respe(*t. And 
Judge Shaw, of Massachusetts, says that in tho 
case of furnished rooms in a lodging house, let for 
.1 particular season, a warranty may be implied 
that they are suitably fitted for such use." ^ 

" I should think," said Jones, " that a would bo 
tenant ought to go and inspect the ])remises for 

" If ho has an opportunity of doing so it might, 
perhaps, make a difference, but if he takes it upon 
the faith of its being properly furnished, common 
sense and common justice concur in the conclusion 
that the owner is bound to let it in an habitable 
state. So saith the Lord Chief Baron." 3 

" I believe that it has been held in this country 
that the existence of a noxious smell in the house 
did not authorize the tenant's leaving."'^ 

"Indeed. My lady, the Dowager Ccmntess of 

1 Wilson V. Finch Hatton, L. R. 2 Ex. D. 043. 

2 Dutton V. Gerrisli, G3 Mass. 94. 

3 Sutton V. Temple, supra. 

4 Wostlake v. De GraW*25 Wend. GG9. 




to rcpu- 

(»(ls aiul 
ic party 
ation to 
id oecn- 
t. And 
in tlio 
', lot for 

rould bo 
lises for 


it upon 




e houso 

ntess of 

Winclu'lsca, agreed to rent a furnislicd house in 
Wilton Crescent, London, for tliree months oC 
the season of 1H75 for tlie sum of 4.')() ijjuineas. 
When her ladysliip arrived with lier servants and 
jK'rsonal luggage, she perceived an unjileasant smell 
in the liouse, and declining to occupy it, had lier 
horses taken out of the stahle. On investigation, 
it was found that the drainage was in a very bad 
state, rendering the house quite unlit for occupa- 
tion. In three weeks' time, however, matters wero 
put right, but her ladysliip refused to go back or 
to pay rent. A suit was brought, in which tho 
whole court unanimously lield that the state of tho 
drains entitled the Countess to rescind tlie bargain 
and to refuse to pay rent.^ Abitiger thought that 
if a tenant, on entering his lodgings, found out that 
tho previous occupier had left because some ono 
had recently died in them of the plague or scarlet 
fever, he would not be compelled to remain.^ And 
in Massachusetts it was decided that a tenant who 
caught small-pox through no fault of his own, but 
because the owner wilfully neglected to inform 
him that the house was infected with that disease, 
might recover damages from the Imdlord." ^ 

Just then a slight movement on the part of Jones 
made the chair on which he was perched creak, 
cr.i'^k, stretch out its legs, and let him down. As 
he was hastily apologizing for the damage, I re- 
LU:irked ; 

1 Wilson V. Finch Ilatton, L. R. 2 Ex. D. 33(5. 

2 Smith r. Marrable, 11 Mees. & W. 5. 
8 Minor v. Sharon, 112 Mass. 477. 




" Don't troublo yourself, the occupier of fur- 
nislied apartiiK'iits is not responsible for deteriora- 
tion l)y ordinary wear or tear in the reasonable use 
of the goods of the landlord." ^ 

"I'll go now, at all events, as I am uj)," said our 
friend, as he seized his liat and made his adieux. 

Qawrc^ was that a white handkerchief i)rotrud- 
ing slightly from his j)istol j)oeket? Indispensables 
arc tighter now-a-days than they used to bo. 

^ Add. ou Contracts, ;377. 



Doubtless many an anxious housekeeper Is Imr- 
ryin«^ rapidly lliroui^li the j)aL^es of this book to 
discover whether or no Tom Jones' ])iere of cntoin. 
ological information wascorreet; but I shall not en- 
lighten them on the point, for this is a work on le- 
gal subjects, and cannot be taken up with recount- 
inix investiixations concernim; the haliits of sucii 
small tilings as insects. Saith not the ancient 
maxim: " Da minimis 7ion curat /t'*c"? 

Wu had, however, other things to think about 
ere mornin<''H li'^ht acjain illuminated the eastern 
sky. Scarcely had wo settled ourselves for the 
night wlk'n my wife started up, exclaiming: 

" Hear the lou<l alarum bells ! Wiiat a tale of ter- 
ror their iurl)ulency tells ! In the startled ear of 
night how they scream out their affright in a clam- 
orous appealing to the mercy of the lire — in a mad 
expostulation with the dei'f and frantic lire ! What 
a tale their terror tells of despair ! How they clang, 
and clash, and roar ! " 

"Ila! and well for us that their twanging and 
their clanging have aroused us; for see! the house 
opposite is all wrapi)ed in flames, and the wind is 
driving right toward us ! " 

Ah! then throughout our house there was hur- 
rying to and fro, and gathering tears, and trem- 







nt <: 



blings of distress, and cheeks all jiale, '»vlilch, lint 
ten minntes past, jiressed the soft pillows with their 
loveliness; and there were sndden snatchings of 
such PS hy chance lay within reach, and leaving 
things which ne'er might be regained; and there 
was rnshini^* in hot haste — the men, the chattering 
women, and the pattering child, went pouring for- 
ward with impetuous speed, and swiftly showed in 
the back yard in I'obes do nuit. 

I jumped into my pantaloons; fortunately, they 
were not like those of Monseigneur d'Artois, nor 
was I as particular as liis highness; fuur tall 
lackeys had to hold him up in the air every morn- 
ing, that he might fall into his breeches without 
vestige of wrinkle, and from them the same four, in 
the same wav but with more effort, had to deliver 
liim at night. AVe found shelter in the hospitable 
mansion of old Mrs. Jones. At the expense of our 
friends, we thatched ourselves anew with the 
"dead fleeces of sheep, the bark of vegetables, the 
entrails of worms, the hides of oxen or seals, the 
felt of furred beasts, and walked down stairs mov- 
ing rag screens, over-heaped with shreds and tat- 
ters raked from the charnel-house of nature" to 
partake of the morning meal. 

At breakfast, Mrs. Lawyer remarked, in anything 
but lugubrious tones : 

" Well, Mr. Jones, we have got rid of those 
rooms without much trouble." 

Tom shook his head ; so my wife asked : 

"Why do you do that?" 

" Because I am not quite sure that you arc yet 

■ 'S^i 



quit of my friend, Mr. Scrcwhanl, your landlord," 
was the reply. 

"What do you mean?" queried my wife. 

"Ask your respected husband; lie knows more 
about such matters than I do." 

In reply to my wife's questioning glance, I said: 
*' I am afraid it is rather too soon to rejoice 
over the mutter. AVe must pay rent until \vc can 
get rid of our liability by a regular notice to 

"But we can't occupy the place." 

"That makes no difference." ^ 

"Then you had no provision in your lease ex- 
empting you in case of fire," remarked Jones. 

" Unfortunately, not." 

"But why should we pay when we cannot use 
the jilace?" asked my wife, growing warm. 

"The rule is, my dear, th;it when the law im- 
poses a duty upon one and he is prevented per- 
forming it without any fault on liis part, and he 
lias no one to whom he mav look for satisfaction, 
the courts will excuse the non-performunce ; but 
when a man volunt.irily takes a duty or charge 
ui)oii himself he must i)erform his contract, come 
what may, because iie might have provided against 
all accidents in his ncjreement." 

"And, you stupid! yuu did not have the lease 
properly drawn !" 

"Exnctly so, my female Solomon," I replied, in- 

^Tzon r. Gorton, 5 X. C. 501 ; 7 Scott, 537 ; Tarker t'. 
Gibbous, 1 Q. 15. 421 ; I owlcr v. Payue, 40 Miss. 32. 

i! % 




•" Well, I must say," said Mrs. L., " that I fear I 
am bound for life to 

" * A wretch so empty, that if o'er there be 
In nature found the least vacuity, 
'Twill be in him.'" 

"Another reason is," broke in Jones, anxious to 
throw oil upon the troubled waters, " that in the 
case of furnished lodgings, as in the case of a house, 
the rent is deemed to issue out of the land ^ — none 
of it out of the furniture 2 — so that the landlord 
can distrain for the whole rent;^ an<l even were he 
to turn the tenant out, no apportionment could bo 
made for the goods.* The law makes no differ- 
ence between lodujers and other tenants as to the 
payment of their rents, or turning them out of i>os- 

" Pray tell me, then, how much notice must we 
give?" demanded Mrs. Lawyer in tones which 
would lead one to imagine that she provided all the 
capital necessary to run the family machine. 

Jones replied : '-If the hiring of the apartments 
be from half year to half year, half a year's notice 
to quit must be given ; if from quarter to quarter, 
a quarter's notice; if from month to montli, a 
month's notice ; if from week to week, a m eek's 
notice ; and if a lodger leaves without giving such 

1 Newman v. Anderton, 2 Cos. & P. N. R. 224 ; Cadogan v. 
Kenmt, (Jowp. 4o2. 

2 Ibid. 

8 Newman??. Anderton. supra. 

4 Ernot V. Cole, Dyer, 2126; Cadogan v. Kennet, supra. 
But see Salmon v. Matthews, 8 Mees. &> W. 827. 



notice lie is liable for the rent for a half year, or a 
quarter, or a, inontli, or a week, as the case may be." 1 

*' Still," I said, anxious to contradict somebody, 
"it has been ruled by a very learned judge tliat in 
the case of an ordinary weekly tenancy a week's 
notice to quit is not implied as part of the contract 
unless there be usage to that effect, but that such a 
tenancy will cease at the end of the term without 
any notice ; in fact, he said that ho was not aware 
that it had ever been decided that in the case of an 
ordinary weekly or monthly tenancy a month's or 
week's notice to quit must bo given. It is to be re- 
garded as a tenancy for a week or a month rather 
than as a tenancy from week to week, or month to 
month, determinable by notice. Were it otherwise, 
such tenancies would, in almost all cases, necessarily 
continue for a double period, which might be incon- 
venient to one or both parties. Of course, even in 
absence of such usage, a weekly tenant who enters 
on a fresh week may be bound to continue until the 
expiration of that week, or pay the week's rcnt.^ 
And in New York it has been decided that in a 
renting by the month, or from month to month, a 
month's notice to quit is not requisite." 3 

" But surely," urged Jones, " a reasonable notice 
must be given of the ending of a weekly tenancy. 
I remember one case in which my father was con- 
cerned, Earle, C. J., said that, although it had been 



i ! 

i Parry r. Hazell, 1 Esp. CA; Teacock r. raiffan, G Esp. 4; 
Doe V. Bayley, G East, 121 ; AVoodfall, 8 Ed. 17G. 

2IIulTL-li V. Armstead, 7 Car. & P. 50; Peacock r. R<iffan, G 
Esn. 4: Towno v. Campbell, ."» Cotn. B. 94. 

o'Peuplo V. Giolct, 14 Abb. Pi- V S. 130. 



laid down that a weekly or a monthly holding does 
not require a week's or a month's notice to deter- 
mine it unless there bo s mie special agreement or 
custom, he did not find that f*ny person ever held 
that the interest of a tenant so holding miglit be put 
an end to witliout any notice at all. It would be 
most unreasonable, he continued, if a landlord were 
entitled to turn his weekly tenant out at twelve 
o'clock at night on the last day of the Aveek ; some 
notice must be necessary. Williams, J., gave it as 
his viesv, that whether it be a tenancy from year to 
year, or week to week, in either case there must bo 
a legal expression of intention that the tenancy 
should cease. The inclination of his opinion was 
that wliere the holding is from week to week a 
week's notice sliould be given, and a month's notice 
where the tenancy is from month to month. Judge 
Willes, in a half frightened sort of way, as if he had 
no doubt he was wrong, considered that because in 
a tenancy from year to year half a year's notice only 
was required, therefore he could not see how it was 
possible that a tenant from week to week should bo 
entitled to more than half a week's notice. While 
Byles, J., remarked that the notice to a weekly 
tenant should be a reasonable one." i 

"And doubtless he is right. And if it is nec- 
essary at all, it must, of course, expire on the 

proper day, i. e., at the end of some week of the 
tenancy." 2 

" Yes ; and a weekly tenancy beginning on Satur- 

1 Jones V. Mills, 10 Com. B. K S. 788. 
SFinlaysou v. Bay ley, 5 Car. & P. G7. 



"g (Iocs 
> detci- 
ncnt or 
cr held 
be put 
>ul(l bo 
1 were 
'0 it as 
^ear to 
uist bo 
•11 was 
'cck a 
le had 
use in 
3 only 
t was 
lid bo 



: the 


day ends on Saturday.! IIow would it be, L:iwycr, 
if the landlord rented the rooms to some one else 
before the exjnration of the week ? " 

" That would amount to a rescission of the bar- 
gain, and he could not sue the defaulting tenant for, 
rent for the days the apartments were empty ; 2 but 
lighting or warming the rooms, or i)utting up Mo 
let ' in the window, will not prevent the owner 
lookinix to the man who has left without jjrivinur the 
proper notice." ^ 

"I suppose that one cannot leave without notice 
because he fears that the landlord's things are likely 
to be seized by the landlord paramount," said Jones. 

"Of course you can make an express stipulation 
to that effect ;* otherwise you cannot leave." ^ 

"Well," said my wife, "I presume that at all 
events the landlord will havo to rebuild if we are 
to continue paying rent " 

"By no means. The rule is, that a landlord, 
after an injury by fire, is under no obligation to re- 
build or repair the house for the benefit of the ten- 
ant," 6 was my melancholy reply. 

Fortunately, breakfast does not last as long as 
dinner; so this conversation (which had grown irk- 
some to myself, and has proved probably equally, if 
not more so, to my readers) was brought to a con- 
clusion before very much more w^as said on this 

1 HuflFell V. Armistead, 7 Car. & P. 5G. 

2 Walls V. Atcheson, 3 Bing. 4G2. 

a Griffith r. Hodges, 2 Car. & P. 419. 
4 Bethett t'. Biencome, 3 M. & G. 110. 
6 Ricket V. Tullick, G Car. & P. GG. 
CDoupe V. Genin, 45 N. Y. 119. 




subject, and I gladly availed myself of the oppor- 
tunity of going out on business. 

Down town I met my old friend, Dr. Lane, wbo 
told me of the tiff he had just had witli his land- 
lord. Some months previously he had hired from 
one Johnson certain rooms in a fashionable local- 
ity, at a rental of a coui)le of hundred dollars a 
year, with the privilege of putting a brass plato 
bearing his name upon the front door. Shortly 
afterward Johnson leased the whole premises to 
Mr. Dixon for twenty- one years. In course of 
time, the health of the neighborhood being excel- 
lent. Lane got in arrear ; so Dixon removed tho 
brass plate, and refused to let tho Doctor have access 
to his rooms — in fact, finding them open one day, 
and the lodger out, he fastened the outer door, and 
so excluded him altogether. Lane sued for dam- 
ages, and the jury kindly gave him £10 for the 
breaking and entry into his room, expelling him 
therefrom and seizing his etceteras, and £20 for 
the removal of the brass plate. Dixon, rather nat- 
urally, was dissatisfied with the verdict of these 
twelve men and apj^ealed to the court, who, how- 
ever, agreed that the jury were perfectly correct in 
their view of the matter, and that the Doctor might 
keep his £30. The removal of the plate was con- 
sidered a distinct and substantive trespass.^ Of 
course the disciple of Galen was overjoyed, and in- 
sisted ujion my taking a glass of something alco- 
holic while he told me of the little trip that he 
purposed taking at his landlord's expense. 

1 Lane v. Dixon, 3 M. G. & S. 77G. 




ic, who 

After parting from the worthy leech my brain 
was rather puzzled to draw a distinction between 
his case and one decided some time ago, where one 
Bloxham, a poulterer and a keeper of a beer-shop, 
claiming a sum of money to be due to him by a 
lodger — one Hartley by name — locked up his goods 
in the room in which Hartley had put them, pock- 
eted the key, and refused the boarder access to 
tliem till his bill was paid — yet it was decided that 
what was done was not such a taking of goods as 
would sustain the action for trespass brought by 
poor Hartley.^ At last it dawned upon mo that in 
the case I was conning over there had been no act- 
ual taking — the landlord never actually touched the 
goods at all — he merely locked the door and kept 
the key, and therein it differed from Lane's suit.^ 

In another case, a landlord, before his tenant's 
time was up, and contrary to his wishes, entered 
his (the tenant's) room and removed therefrom 
books, maps, and papers, placing them wliere they 
were damaged by the rain. The boarder, not lik- 
ing such treatment, sued his landlord, and the court 
decided that the latter was a trespasser and liable 
for all damages sustained, whether they resulted 
from his direct and immediate acts, or remotely 
from the act of God.^ 

Before returning home I called on a friend wlio 
also dwelt in furnished ai)artments. Far from se- 
raphic was the state of mind in which I found him. 

II ii 

1 Hartley v. Bloxham, 3 Q. B. 701. 

2 Lane v. Dixon, supra, per Cresswell, J. 
flNowlan v. Never, 2 Sweeny, (N. Y.) G7. 




"What can be done to stop that horrid noise? 
It will drive rao mad ! " was Ids petulant sahitation. 

I listened, and heard the dull, rumbling noise of 
some -wheeled machine being rolled, now fast, now 
slow, then up, then down, in the room above. 

"What is it?" I asked. 

"Oh, I know what it is only too well. A foolish 
young couple live up stairs, and their first baby is 
teethinjj or something of the sort, and whines and 
howls incessantly, so the mother by day and the 
father by night continually trundle it up and down 
the room in a parlor baby-carriage, making such a 
noise that I can neither read nor sleep. It is a 
regular nuisance, and I'll have it stopped." 

" I suppose that they don't do it merely to dis- 
turb and annoy you, but rather for the good of the 
juvenile," I remarked. 

" As for that matter I presume . leir intentions 
are honorable, but that does not make any differ- 



" Yes it does ; the very point has been decided 
by Judge Van Hoesen, of l^o.w York. To him a 
Mr. Pool applied for an injunction to prevent one 
of his fellow-lodgers wheeling a sick child about 
the room." 

" Well, what was the result ? " 

" Why, as it did not appear that the noise was 
made unnecessarily, but only from the attempt to 
soothe the infant, the court refused to interfere 
with the amusement of the child, saying that the 
occupants of buildings where there are other ten- 
ants cannot restrain the others from any use they 



loise of 
st, now 

baby is 
los and 
nd tho 
I down 
such a 
It is a 

to dis- 
of the 


him a 
nt one 

36 was 
ipt to 
erf ere 
it the 
r ten- 

may choose to make of their own apartments, con- 
sistent with good neighborliood and with a reason- 
able regard for the comfort of others." 


" The judge added that if the rocking of a cra- 
dle, the wheeling of a carriage, the wbirling of a 
sewing machine, or the discord of ill-played music, 
disturb the inmates of an apartment-house, no relief 
by injunction can be obtained, unless the proof bo 
clear that the noise is unreasonable, and made with- 
out due regard to the rights and comforts of other 
occupants.! And in England it was hold that tho 
noise of a piano from a neighbor's house, or the 
noise of neighbor's children in their nursery, are 
noises we must expect, and must, to a considerable 
extent, put up with." 2 

" At all events, no judge can compel me to stay in 
tlie house and be annoyed in this way. I'll give 
notice to quit at once." 

# # # # # 

Here endeth the account of our experiences in 
the matter of furnished apartments, boarding- 
houses, and hotels. After this Mrs. Lawyer and 
myself settled down quietly to housekeeping. Our 
exj)eriences in that lino have nothing to do Avith 
the subject of this book. 

1 Pool V. Illginson, 18 Alb. L. J. 82. 
SMellish, L. J. L. K. 8 Cb. 471. 


II ! 

• f • 


Absence of guest— loss of bafjguge durin,:,', n, '10. 
Accommodation — iiinkoopor need only sni)[»ly rnnsoii- 
ablo, ]>. 7. 

payincut for l)a(l, \\ 1<1. 
Action against innkeeper— for refusing to rccoivo i;uo3t, 
p. 12. 

for Hiiiiplyiug bad food, p. 14. 
Agreement to furnish— p. 177. 
Agreement with inr.keeper— a.s to board, pi>. (Jl, IGS. 

as to rooiu, p. (ii. 
Assault— liability of inukeopor for servant' w assault, p. 30. 

protcctiug guests iroiu^ pp. 74-124. 

Baggage— what is, pp. 74, 8(>-8S. 

articles of jewelry, p. .S(!. 

innkeeper liable for loss in bus, p. 122. 

aud during t(unporary abs(.'uce of guest, p. 40. 

innkeepers are insurers of, p. 40. 

need not bo given to landlord, p. 47. 

where guest retains exelusivo possession, pp. 51, 52, 

of ono stopping elsewlu^re, p. (JO. 
Ball— innkeciper not liable for loss of a guest at. p. (30. 
Bed— guest need not go t(», p. 40. ^i*^*--^*^ ^^ , 

damp bed, p. 105. 

innkeeper in bed, p. !•>. 
Betting and bets— wlieu improper, pp, G;>-Oj. 

when bets recovered, j). 04. 

all void, pp. 05, 00. 

loser recovering stakes, pp. 00, G7. 
Billiards- pp. 70, 71. 
Bird— liable to distress, p. 170. 
Boarder— annoying fellow-boarders, pp. lOH, 101. 

must look after his own goods, pp. 159, 100. 
Boarding-house— what is a, p. IGG. 

differs from hotel, p. 107. 





!l I 

Boarding-house keeper— liability of, pp. 131, l.V). 

what ajuoiint of citro roqiiir(;(l in, p. 155. 
licablo for gross neglect, p. lOO. 
liability for tliuft by strangor, p. 1(»1. 
liability for faults of servants, p. 1(55. 
can cliooso his lodgers, [k 1G7. 

riglit of lien, p. bi.) 
Breakages in hotel— wTHft^^uesris liablo for, p. 101. 

by boarder, i>. 188. 
Burglars -p. 107. 

Card-playiug— description of, p. 71. 

in private, p. 08. 
Carelessness of guest— in elevator, p. 21. 

when intoxicated, p. 58. 

loss through, pp. lOS, lO:). 

leaving door unlocked, pp. 112-115. 
Carriage— left outside inn-yard, p. 118. 

stolen, p. 119. 
Cat distrainable— p. 17(). 
Clothing— innkeeper need not supply, p. 10. 

innkeeper's lien on, pp. 137-141. 

liablo to seizure for rent, pp. 175-17G. 
Commercial traveler— goods of, in private room, pp. 52, 


Dinner hours— p. 54. 

Dinner-set— p. 77. 

Distraining for rent— furnished house, p. 174. 

what things liablo to distress, pp. 175, 170. 
Sec Cat, Clothing. 
Dog in hotel— p. 43. 
Door— left unlocked at iunkeei>cr'8 request, p. 53. 

not necessary to lock, pp. 112, 114. 

left open, pp. 154, 155. 
Door-bell— lodger entitled to use, p. 182. 
Door-plate— removing, p. 190. 

Ejecting guests— for bad manners, p. 2G. 

for non-payment, p. 40. 
Ejecting tenants— pp. 19G, 197. 
Emigrants— house for, an inn, p. 20. 
Entomological— pp. IG. 187. 

^*»v/^ / **»*/t^. 



Explosion of stove— p. \:<x 
Excessive charges— [jp. ;;o, 124. 
Expectorating— pp. 20-l'2. 

Fire— liability of inukeopor for losses by, p. lOi. 
Food-iiiiikoepcr srlliu.-,' bad food, p. U. ' ' 

_ boardin!,'-Iiousi) k<'<'i)i!i- selliu^^^ bad food, p. 1(^5. 
Friend— cautiot, suo for lost goods, p. Tii). 


Furnished apartments-coutm.^t for, must bo in writiu-T 
p. 171. **' 

liability of landlord to repair, p. ISO. 

leaving for disivpair, p. ISI. 

lodger (Mifitl(;d to all appurtcuanoos, p. 18J. 

must bo fro(5 from v.Tmiii, pp. 18;{, 181. 

must bo pro[)crly furnisli<>d, p. 1S5. 

must bo lit for imiuudial.) habitation, p. IW. 

notice to quit, pp. i;)l-i9i. 

noise of fullo\v-l(jdgors iu, pp. 198, luy. 

Gaming— forbidden in inns, p. G3. 
what is, p. (JS. 

lawful games, pp. 70, 71. 

unlawful games, p. (JO. 
Goods and property -delinition of, p. 85. 
Guest— must bo a trav(,'l(;r. p. n'.). 

ono purchasing refreshment may bo a guest, p. 59. 

neighbor not a, p. 14. 

when able to pay must always bo admitted, p. 9. 

when tender necessary, pp. 0, 10. 

may bo refused admission if improper, pp. 10, IJ. 

or suffering from contagious disease, p. 10. 

or if inn is full, p. 11. 

or if ho is in liltliy state, p. 11. 

need not register his name, p. 13. 

nor go to bed, p. ^10. 

nor take all his meals at inn, p. GO. 

cannot carry on business at inn, p. 30. 

liability when retaining exclusive possession of troods 
p. 50. "^ ' ' 

for breakages, p. 101. 

no lien on. pp. 137, 138. 



![ ; 



Horse of guest— of ono stopping olscwliere, pp. CO, 122, 

after (l('p:irturc of fjiicst. pp. (i2, 120. 

stolen fruiii inn stable, p. 12'.>. 

injured in inn stabl<j, pp. 120, 121. 

injured in Held, p. 122. 

lien on, for keep of another, p. 12S. 

for its own k(^ep, p. 12'J. 

for its (jwner's keep, p. 127. 

stolen horses, p. Vo2. 
Hotel— di if ers not from inn, pp. 2,3. 

derivation of, p. o. 

Amerii;an and JOuglish, pp. 5i-57. 
Seo Inn. 
Hotel-keepsr— Sec iNNKEErER. 

Improper pcr-gons— need not be admitted into liotel, p. IX 
Inevitable accident— liability of innkeeper for, p. 47. 
Infant— lion on goods of, p. M'.). 
Inn— derivation of word, p. 1). 

differs not from hotel, pp. 2, .'>. 

origin of, jip. .■"',1. 

development of, p. 5. 

definition of, iip. IS, 19. 

description of eoantry inn, pp. 7, 8. 

of city inn, p. 2.'). 

sign not essential to, p. 5. 
Innkeeper— deiinition of, pp. 5, 1'.). 

need not let guest choose a room, pp. 7, SD. 

must receive all proper jxTsons, pp. *), 107. 

but not those disorderly, p. 10. 

or having contagious diseas(% jx 10. 

or if house bo full, p. 10. 

nor thieves, nor policemen, p. 11. 

sickness no excuse for refusing to receive guests, p. 11. 

nor absence, p. 11. 

nor being in bed, ]). IH. 

but sickness of ser\'ants is, p. 12. 

or infancy, p. 12. 
Seo Lien. 

not bound to supply clothes, p. 19. 

liable for baggage lost in bus, pp. 22, 02. 

for assault of servants iipou guest, ji. iiO. 

CO, 122, 

cl, p. 13. 
. 47. 

is, p. 11. 



for goods of guest lost or stolen, pp. 4."), 40, 92. 

unless guest Avas negligent, pp. 4r,, 103. 

arc insurers of guest's in'operty. ])p. 40, 103. 

in Avluiti'vur jiart of hotel, pp. 47, 4S, O'J, 111. 

cannot make guest take eliarg(\ p. 4S. 

when his liability ceases, pp. Ol-O;'.. 

liability for gu(.'st's money, p. 1)0. 

for loss by lire, p. 10;). 

for acts of niiee, p. 104. 

for loss by burglars, p. 107. 

for horses and carriages, pp. 11,S-124, 

goods out.side inn, p. 118. 

lien on horses, pp. 12S-i;5;?. 
Intoxication— loss of goods by guest, p. 58. 

innkeeper drunk in bed, p. GO. 

Laundrecs— liability of innkeeper to, p. 20. 

Lawyer's dinners— p. ,34. 

Leakage of roof— p. ISO. 

Liability of innkeeper— when it coasos, pp. 01, 02. 

limitation of, p. 80. 

statutory limitati(ni— p. 81. 

construed strictly, pp. 82, 83. 

not api)licablo to horses, p. 120. 
Livery-stable keeper— lien of, pp. 134, 135. 
Locking dooi-- pp. Ji2, 114. 
Lien— right of, cannot bo sold, pp. 131, 148. 

on goods of third parties, i)p. 132. 140, 150. 

special agreement as to payment, p. i;U. 

of livery-stablo keeper, p. 1.34. 

for improving horse, p. 135. 

none on jierson of guest, pp. 137, 138. 

nor on clothing, pp. 137-140. 

why innkeepers have a, p. 144. 

only on goods of guests, pp. 145, 14(i 

when it ceases, p. 147. 

no limit to amount of, p. 148. 
. boarding-house keepers, ji. IGO. 
See IIonsKs. 

Manners at table— pp. 2G, 27... 
Matches— taking, p. 102. 




Misstatements as to hotels— p. 23. 
Money— guest depositing in safe, p. 84. 

liability of landlord for, pp. UO, 91, 93. 

when entrusted to third party, i^. 96. 
Mosquitoes~p. 74. 

Necessaries of a wife— pp. 32, 33. 
Neighbor— cannot bo a guest, pp. 14, GO. 

unless traveling, pp. 14, 59. 
Noise of boarders— pp. 120, 121, 198, 199. 
Notice to quit— pp. 191, 194. 

Parties dining together— p. 28. 

Prize candy— p. 71. 

Pullman car— not a common inn, pp. 70, 77. 

Rats and mice— depredations of, pp. 104, 105. 
Refreshment bar— not an inn, p. 35. 
Register— guest need not enter name in, p. 13. 
Repairs— liability of landlord for, pp. 180, 181. 

after a lire, p. 195. 
Restaurant— not an inn, p. 35. 

Robbery— liability of host for loss of guest's goods, pp. 45, 
9-», 94. 

by guest— pp. 53, 110. 
Room—landlord to choose, pp. 7, 39. 

trespassing on guest's, p. 73. 

Safe — depositing in, p. 79. 

See Valuahles. 
Shaving— when barber liable for accidents, p. 9«J. 
Singing— of fellow-boarders, pp. 120, 121. 
Sleeping-car owners — neither innkeepers nor common 

carriers, pp. 7G, 77. 
Smells— effect on tenants' rights of noxious, pp. 18G, 187. 
Stables— not a necessary for an inn, p. 19. ^-o-^^ S'f> 

landlord's liability for bad, pp. 120, VM. 
Stove-pipe— passing through room, p. 178. 
Sunday travelers— must bo admitted by innkeeper, p. 13. 

Tavern an inn— p. 3G. 

Tender of payment— by guest, pp. 9, 10. 

Traveler— who is a, p. 59. 



Valuables— wlien need bo deposited in safe, p. 48. 
notice of rule as to deposit of, pp. 49, 50. 79. 
personal jewelry, p. 79. 
when to bo deposited, pp. 84, 9G. 

Watch— as to depositing in safe, pp. 79, 80, 83, 85. 
>Vatering-place— hotel at, p. 108. 
Water-pipes— leakage of, p. 178.