And this duty and burthen enjoined innkeepers by law they cannot discharge themselves of, under pretence of sickness, want of understanding, absence from their houses, or the like. 3 Bacon's Abridgm. 182. But an infant innkeeper shall not be charged; for his privilege shall be preferred and take place of the custom. Roll's Abridgm. 2. And if an inn is broke open, and the goods of guests taken away by the king's enemies, the innkeeper is not answerable. Plowden 9. b. Also if a person comes to an innkeeper,and desires to be enter. tained by him, which the innkeeper refuses, because his house is already full, whereupon the party says, he will shift among the rest of the guests, and there he is robbed, the host shall not be charged. Bondloe 60. pl. 101. But there is a difference between the refusal to take in a guest, and a refusal to take care of goods; for although an innkeeper refuses to take charge of goods till a future day, because his house is full of parcels, still he is liable to make good the loss, if the owner stops as a guest, and the goods be stolen during his stay, for in the case of Bennett and Mellor, East. Ter. 33 Geo. 3, it appears that the plaintiff's servant came to an ian, and desired to have the liberty of leaving the goods, which he could not dispose of in the market, until the next week, the innkeeper's wife said she could not tell, for they were very full of parcels. The plaintiff's servant then sat down in the inu, had some liquor, and placed the goods on the floor immediately behind. him, when he got up, after sitting there a little while, the goods were missing.The Court were clearly of opinion, that the innkeeper was liable to answer for the loss. For there was no refusal to receive the plaintiff's servant as a guest, the innkeeper merely refused to take care of the goods until the next week, and when the plaintiff's servant was sitting in the inn, with the consent of the innkeeper (for the latter did not object to receive him) he was in the same situation as any other guest, and entitled to the same protection for his goods. 5 Term Rep. 273. If a man comes to a common inn, and desires that his horse be put to grass, and the host puts him to grass accordingly, and the horse is stolen, the host shall not be charged; because by law the host is not bound to answer for any thing out of his inu, but only for those things that are infra hospitium. 8 Coke 32. in Caly's Case. But if the owner does not require the host to put his horse to grass, but the host does it of his own head, if the horse be stolen, he shall answer for it. 8 Coke 32 b. Also if the host, upon the command of the guest, puts the horse to grass, and by the voluntary and wilful negligence of the host the horse is stolen; as if the host voluntarily leaves open the gates of the close, by which means the horse strays out, and so is stolen or lost, a special action on the case lies, but not on the custom of the realm. Roll's Abridg. 4. Mosley and Fosset, and Hern's Plead. 250. If the guest is robbed by his servant, or by one who comes with him, or by one who desires to be lodged with him, he shall have no action against the host; for it was the folly of the guest to keep such a servant or company, and there is no default of good custody in the host. 8 Coke 32. a. But if the host requires his guest to put his goods in such a chamber, under lock and key, and that then he will warrant their safety, or else not, and notwithstanding the guest suffers them to lie in an outer court, where they are stolen, yet he shall be answerable; because he is charged in law for all things which come to his inn, and he cannot discharge himself of this branch of his duty by such a declaration as this. Moor 78. So if the host delivers the key of the chamber, where the goods are, to the guest, and he leaves the door open, and the goods are stolen, yet an action lies against the host; for at his peril he ought to keep safely the goods of his guests and it seems the host is answerable, though the guest does not acquaint him what goods he has. 8 Croke 33. a. Who shall be If a person comes to an inn, and makes a previous contract deemed guests. for lodging for a set time, and does not cat and drink there, he is no guest, but a lodger, and such as is not under the innkeeper's protection; but if he eats and drinks there, it is otherwise; or if he pays for his diet there, though he does not cat it there. 12 Modern Rep. 254. So if a man comes to an inn with a hamper, in which he hath several goods, and goes away, leaving this with the host. and two days after comes again, but in the time of his absence this is stolen, he shall have no action against the host; for at the time of the stealing he was not his guest, and by the keeping the hamper the host had no benefit, and therefore shall not be charged with the loss of it in his absence. Roll's Abridgm. 338. Croke Jac. 188. Noy 126. But if a man comes to an inn with a horse which he rides, and leaves it with the host, and goes away from the inn for several days, and in his absence the horse is stolen, yet shall the host be charged for it; because he had benefit by the continuance of the horse with him, inasmuch as he is to be paid for it; and so the owner is a sufficient guest, to maintain an action. Salkeld's Rep. 388. If an host invites one to supper, and, the night being far spent, invites him to stay all night, if he is after robbed, yet shall not the host be charged, for his guest was no traveller. 8 Cole 32. b. If an attorney hires a chamber in an inn for the whole term, he is as it were a lessee; and if robbed the host is not answerbie. Moor 187. So if a man upon a special agreement boards or sojourns at an inn, and is robbed, the host shall not answer for it. Latch. 127. Helen 49. Bet if A comes with goods to an inn in London, and stays there for a week, month, or longer, and is there robbed of them he shall have an action against his host; though perhaps, being at the end of his journey, he cannot then be said to be travelling. Latch 127. If a man's servant, travelling on his master's business, comes to an inn with his master's horse, which is there stolen, the mater may have an action against the host, because the absoJute property is in him. Croke Jac. 224. So if A sends money by his friend, and he is robbed in his inn, A shall have the action. Yelverton 162. Ifone joint tenant of goods is robbed, both may have the action. Latch 197. But in all these actions the plaintiff must prove that the defendant kept a common inn, and that he, his son, or servant, was a guest at that time, and that the goods were brought within the inn, and remained under the care of the defendant. Buller's Nisi Prius, 8vo, edit. 73. XV. The innkeeper's remedy against his guests. to detail. Innkeepers may detain the person of the guest who eats, or the General power horse which eats, till payment; and this he may do without any agreement for that purpose: for men that get their livelihood by entertainment of others cannot aunex such disobliging conditions that they shall retain the party's property in case of non-payment, nor make so disadvantageous and impudent a supposition that they shall not be paid; and therefore the law annexes such a condition, without the express agreement of the parties. 3 Bacon's Abridgm. 185. For it would be hard to oblige him to sue for every little debt, and a greater hardship that he might not be able to find him who was his guest. 8 Mod. Rep. 172. And the privilege of the innkeeper is so great that he may en detain the horse against the right owner, until he is paid. For in the case of Yorke and Grenaugh it was determined that May detain a an inn-keeper may detain a horse brought to his inn by a stran. horse against ger, against the right owner, until it's meat is paid for,even though the right owner. the traveller who brought it was a wrong doer or a robber; for pposing that he was a robber, and had stolen the horse, yet if comes to an inn, and is a guest there, and delivers the horse May detain to the inn-keeper, who does not know it, the inn-keeper is ob. liged to accept the horse; and then it is very reasonable that he shall have a remedy for payment, which is by retainer and he is not obliged to consider who is owner of the horse, but whether he who brings him is his guest or not. 2 Ld. Raymond. 867. If a man commit his horse to an inn-keeper and he puts him him for pasture. to pasture, he may detain the horse until he be satisfied for the meat; for the pasture of such persons, set up by the the law for entertainment, hath the same privilege with the stables. 2 Roll's Abridg. 85. but can only detain the horse for its own meal. If a horse be committed to an inn-keeper, it may be detained only for its own meat, and not for the meat of the guest, or of any other horse; for the chattels in such case are only in the custody of the law for the debt that arises from the thing itself, and not from any other debt due from the same party; for the law is open for all such debts, and doth not admit private persons to make reprisals. 3 Bacon's Abridgm. 186. Cannot use an An innkeeper that detains a horse for his meat cannot use him, horse detamed, because he detains him as in the custody of the law, and by consequence the detention must be in the nature of a distress, which cannot be used by the distrainer. Moor. 877. nor sell the same, except in London and Exeter, where horses may be sold by the inn-keeper for their food, but not if they belong to a third person. Horse taken Nor has an innkeeper, by the general custom, any power to sell a horse for his meat. 1 Strange's Rep. 556. 8 Mod. 172. But, by the particular customs of London and Exeter, if a man commit an horse to an hostler there, and he cat out the price of his head, the hostler may take him as his own, upon the reasonable appraisement of four of his neighbours: which customs arose from the abundance of traffic with strangers that could not be known, to charge them with the action. 3 Bacon's Abridgm. 186. Yet if A commit the horse of B to an hostler in London, and he eat out his head, yet cannot the hostler sell him: for all customs being derogatory to the common law, are to be taken strict. ly; and there is no custom in London that hath gone so far as this case, to authorize one man to sell and convey the property of another. 2 Roll's Abridg. 85. If an horse be committed to an innkeeper, and be detained by away, must be him for his meat, and the owner take him away, the innkeeper tresh pursued. must make fresh pursuit after him, and retake him, otherwise the custody of him is lost, for he cannot retake him at any other time: for if a distress be rescued, and the party upon fresh pursuit do not retake it, the distress is lost; for no man that has only a naked custody can make a reprisal when the thing is out of his custody, for it is in the power of an owner and proprietor, and of him only, to retake such his property wherever he finds it. 2 Roll's Rep. 438. If the horse olice goes from the inn, he can So if the innkeeper permits his guest to take away his horse, not afterwards without aying the expeuces, giving him credit for what is due, be detained. he cannot afterwards, on his coming in again, detain him for such expenses; for he has waved the benefit of the custom by his own consent to the departure, and shall never afterwards detain the horse for that expense. 8 Modern Rep. 172. 1 Strange 557. If a horse be committed to an hostler, and he detain him for Where conhis meat, and after the owner agrees that he shall retain him till sidered as a hes satisfied; here he hath not only the custody of him as a dis- pledge. ts, but also the property in him as a pledge; and if the owner take it from him he shall not only retake it upon fresh pursuit, but wherever he meets it; because he had a property by such agree. at, and a man that hath a property may retake his own where he meets with it. 2 Roll's Rep. 438. any more food, Where a man had an horse in an inn, and came thither and Guest ordering directed that the innkeeper should not give him any more food, the innkeeper for he would not be responsible for it; the question was, whether to desist from for the food, after this direction, given by the innkeeper to the giving his horse hore, he who brought the horse thither should be charged or not? answerable and Holt Ch. J. said, this was not a discharge; for then any inn- notwithstandper might be deceived, and it is lessening of the security of an ing. irakeeper, who may detain, and, by the custom of London, sell e horse for his keeping. Skinner 648. pl. 6. Where a guest took off the sheets from his bed, with an intent Guest stealing 1 steal them, and carried them into the hall, but before he could goods. for any the least removing of the thing taken from the place where Ect out of the house was apprehended; this was adjudged larceny; it was before, is sufficient, though it be not quite carried off. 1 Hak. c. 33. s. 18. By 24 Geo. 2. c. 40, no person shall be entitled unto, or Debts for spimaintain any action, or recover either in law or equity, any mo- rituous liquors y, debt or demands, for spirituous liquors, unless such debt has under 20s. not Den bond fide contracted at one time, to the amount of 20s. or shall any particular article in any account for dis owards; nor ed spirituous liquors be allowed, where the liquors delivered at Ge time, and mentioned in such article, amount not to the value 0. at least, and that without fraud; and where no part of the ors so sold or delivered have been returned, or agreed to be returned, s. 12. recoverable, them on penal And in case any retailer of spirituous liquors, with or without a nor any pledge Anse, shall take any pledge for the payment of any money ow. to be taken for for such spirituous liquors, he shall forfeit 40s. for every pledge so taken, to be levied by warrant of one justice where ty of 40s. the offence is committed; and one moiety shall be to the use of other moiety to the informer; and the person to whom such poor of the parish where such offence is committed, and the ge belongs shall have the same remedy for recovering it, or Te value, as if it had never been pledged. s. 12. |