diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/66992-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/66992-0.txt | 6894 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 6894 deletions
diff --git a/old/66992-0.txt b/old/66992-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index fe0554c..0000000 --- a/old/66992-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,6894 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Law of Hotel Life, by R. Vashon (Robert -Vashon) Rogers - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: The Law of Hotel Life - or the Wrongs and Rights of Host and Guest - -Author: R. Vashon (Robert Vashon) Rogers - -Release Date: December 22, 2021 [eBook #66992] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -Produced by: Chuck Greif and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at - http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images - available at The Internet Archive) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LAW OF HOTEL LIFE *** - - - - - THE LAW OF HOTEL LIFE - - - - - THE - - LAW OF HOTEL LIFE - - OR THE - - Wrongs and Rights of Host and Guest. - - BY - R. VASHON ROGERS JR. - Of Osgoode Hall, Barrister-at-Law - - SAN FRANCISCO: - SUMNER WHITNEY AND COMPANY. - BOSTON: HOUGHTON, OSGOOD & CO. - The Riverside Press, Cambridge. - 1879. - - - Copyright 1879, - BY SUMNER WHITNEY & CO. - - - - -A PREFACE. - - -The author knows as well as did old Burton that “books are so plentiful -that they serve to put under pies, to lap spice in, and keep roast meat -from burning,” yet he ventures to offer another volume to the public, -trusting that some men’s fancies will incline towards and approve of it; -for “writings are so many dishes, readers guests, books 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 piece of cloth, 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 suggestion 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 everything. Doubtless mistakes -will be found; but if every one knew the law who thinks he does, lawyers -would starve. - - R. V. R. JR. - -_Kingston, Ont., March, 1879._ - - - - -CONTENTS. - - - I. A COMMON INN AND INNKEEPER, 1 - - II. CITY HOUSE AND MANNERS, 18 - - III. ACCIDENTS, ROOMS, DOGS, 31 - - IV. GUESTS, WAGERS, GAMES, 58 - - V. SAFES AND BAGGAGE, 76 - - VI. FIRE, RATS, AND BURGLARS, 97 - - VII. HORSES AND STABLES, 117 - -VIII. WHAT IS A LIEN? 136 - - IX. DUTIES OF A BOARDING-HOUSE KEEPER, 152 - - X. MORE ABOUT BOARDING-HOUSE KEEPERS, 166 - - XI. CHARMS OF FURNISHED APARTMENTS, 173 - - XII. NOTICE TO QUIT AND TURNING OUT, 189 - - - - -CHAPTER I. - -A COMMON INN AND INNKEEPER. - - -The last kiss was given--the last embrace over--and, amid a storm of -hurrahs and laughter and a hailstorm of old slippers and uncooked rice, -we dashed away from my two-hours’ bride’s father’s country mansion in -the new family carriage, on our wedding tour. The programme was that we -were to stay at the little village of Blank that night, and on the -morrow we expected to reach the city of Noname, where we would be able -to find conveyances more in accord with the requirements of the last -quarter of the nineteenth 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 prancing grays hurried us along the country roads--now -beside grassy meads, now beneath o’erhanging forest trees, then up hill, -next down dale, while little squirrels raced along beside us on the -fence tops, or little streamlets dashed along near by, bubbling, -foaming, roaring and sparkling in the sheen of the merry sunshine, and -the broad fans of insect angels gently waved over their golden disks as -they floated past; all nature, animate and inanimate, smiling merrily -upon us, as if quite conscious who and what we were. But little did we -note the beauties of sky or field, cot or hamlet, bird or flower, for -was it not our first drive since the mystic word of the white-robed -minister of the Church had made of us twain one flesh? The beauties of -the other’s face and disposition absorbed the contemplation of each of -us. Once or twice, indeed, I felt inclined to make a remark or two anent -the fields we passed; but remembering that I knew not a carrot from a -parsnip, until it was cooked, or wheat from oats, except in the -well-known forms of bread and porridge, 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 very good, - But ’tis by no means solid food; - And ere our first day’s drive was o’er, - I found we wanted something more. - -So when at last, as the shadows began to lengthen and still evening drew -on, we espied in the valley beneath us the village in which was our -intended resting place, 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 people talk of a village ‘inn’ and a city ‘hotel’? -What is the difference between a hotel and an inn?” - -“There is no real difference,” I replied, glad to have the subject -changed from the one Mrs. Lawyer had first started. “The distinction is -but one of name, for a hotel is but a common inn on a grander scale.[1] -Inn, tavern, and hotel are synonymous terms.”[2] - -“What do the words really mean?” - -“Have you forgotten all your French? The word ‘hotel’ is derived from -the French _hôtel_, (for hostel,) and originally meant a palace, or -residence for lords and great personages, and has, on that account no -doubt, been retained to distinguish the more respectable houses of -entertainment.” - -“Well, what is the derivation of ‘inn’?” queried my wife. - -“I was just going to say that that is rather obscure, but is probably -akin to a Chaldaic word meaning ‘to pitch a tent,’ and is applicable to -all houses of entertainment.[3] Inns there were in the far distant East -thirty-five centuries and more before you appeared to grace this mundane -sphere;[4] although, when the patriarch Jacob went to visit his pretty -cousins, he was not 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 that just mentioned pillow become,” -said Mrs. L., interruptingly. “And much pain and grief, as well as glory -and renown, has it brought to those who have used it.” - -“What meanest thou?” in my turn queried I. - -“Don’t you know that upon that stone the sovereigns 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 himself up in a corner, and, undisturbed by the thought -of having to rise before daylight to catch the express, sleep--while the -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. - -“Quite correct. Boniface, in those days, contented himself with an iron -coin, a piece of leather stamped with the image of a cow, or some such -primitive representative of the circulating medium.” - -“Times are changed since then,” remarked my companion. - -“What else could you expect? Are you a total disbeliever in the -Darwinian theory of development? Inns and hotels, in their history, are -excellent examples of the truth of that hypothesis. Protoplasm maturing -into perfect humanity is as nothing to them. See how, through many -gradations, the primeval well has become the well-stocked bar-room of -to-day; the antique hovel is now the luxurious Windsor, the resplendent -Palace, the Grand Hôtel 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 piece 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 deferred 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 reply. “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 lodgings and necessaries -for them, their attendants, and horses, is a common innkeeper, whether a -sign swings before the door, or no.”[5] - -“And a common enough innkeeper he looks, in all conscience,” said Mrs. -Lawyer, as mine host of the signless inn appeared upon the stoop to -receive his guests. Coatless he was, waistcoat he had none; the rim of -his hat glistened brightly in the declining sun, as if generations of -snails had made it their favorite promenade; his legs, or the legs of -his pantaloons, were not pairs--they differed so much in length; his -boots knew not the glories of Day & Martin; his face had hydrophobia, 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 ease 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 exchanged -when for a minute we 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 miserable apology for one within thirty miles,” I -growled. - -“’Tis but for a night,” returned my wife, in consolatory tones. “It is -only what we might have expected, for saith not the poet: - - ‘Inns are nasty, dusty, fusty, - Both with smoke and rubbish musty’?” - -Soon we mounted the groaning stairs to our dormitory, and found the -house to be a veritable - - “Kind of old Hobgoblin Hall, - Now somewhat fallen to decay, - With weather stains upon the 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--possibly; but to have conceived my blooming -bride in a more unsuitable place--impossible. I asked for better -accommodation; Boniface shook his head solemnly, (I thought I heard his -few brains rattle in his great stupid skull) and muttered that it was -the best he had, and if we did not like it we 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 precise rooms they may -select.”[6] - -We resolved to display the Christian grace of resignation. - -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: we -found, on entering the _salle à manger_, a couple of small tables put -together in the middle of the room, covered with three or four cloths of -different ages and dates of washing, and arranged as much like one as -the circumstances of the case would allow. Upon these were laid knives -and forks; some of the knife-handles were green, others red, and a few -yellow, and as all the forks were black, the combination of colors was -exceedingly striking. Soon the rest of the paraphernalia and the -comestibles appeared, and then Josh Billings’ description became -strictly applicable; “Tea tew kold tew melt butter; fride potatoze which -resembled the chips a tew-inch augur makes in its journey thru an oke -log; bread solid; biefstake about az thick as blister plaster, 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 we managed to supply the cravings of -the inner man to some extent. - -“What is this?” I asked of the landlord, as he handed me a most -suspicious looking fluid. - -“It’s bean soup,” he gruffly replied. - -“Never mind what it’s been--what is it now?” I asked a second time. A -smile from my wife revealed to me my error, and I saved the astonished -man the necessity of a reply. - -At the table we were joined by an acquaintance, who informed me that he -had great difficulty in obtaining admission to the house, as the -innkeeper had a grudge against him. - -“No matter what personal objection a host may have, he cannot refuse to -receive a guest. Every one who opens an inn by the wayside, and -professes to exercise the business and employment of a common innkeeper, -is bound to afford such shelter and accommodation as he possesses to all -travelers who apply therefor, and tender, or are able to pay, the -customary charges,”[7] I remarked. - -“But 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.[8] But, in a subsequent -case, Lord Abinger said that he could not agree with Coleridge’s -opinion,[9] 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 definitely settled in England. Text-writers, however, think -an offer to pay requisite,[10] and it has been so held in Canada.”[11] - -“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.”[12] - -“It seems hard that a man must admit every one into his house, whether -he wishes or no,” said my wife. - -“Reflect, my dear,” I replied, “that if an innkeeper was allowed to -choose his guests and receive only those whom he saw fit, unfortunate -travelers, although able and willing to pay for entertainment, 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 spring.” - -“Do you mean to say that improper persons must be received?” - -“Oh dear no! A traveler who behaves in a disorderly or improper manner -may be refused admission,[13] and so may one who has a contagious -disease, or is drunk.[14] And, of course, if there is no room, admission -may be refused.[15] But it will not do for the publican to say that he -has no room, if such statement be false; for that venerable authority, -Rolle, says: ‘Si un hôtelier refuse un guest sur pretense que son maison -est pleine de guests, si est soit faux, action sur le case git.’”[16] - -“You don’t say so!” 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.”[17] - -“Suppose 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. Nor should he allow a policeman, while on -duty, to remain on his premises, except in the execution of that -duty.[18] And he may prohibit the entry of one whose misconduct or -filthy condition would subject his guests to annoyance.[19] And I -remember reading that Mrs. Woodhull and Miss Claflin were turned away -from a New York hotel on the ground of their want of character.” - -“What if the poor hotel-keeper is sick?” inquired Mrs. Lawyer. - -“Neither illness, nor insanity, nor lunacy, nor idiocy, nor -hypochondriacism, nor hypochondriasis, nor vapors, nor absence, nor -intended absence, can avail the landlord as an excuse for refusing -admission.[20] Although the illness or desertion of his servants, if he -has not been able to replace them, might be an excuse; and perchance his -own infancy, and perchance not.”[21] - -“What can you do if he refuses to let you in?” asked my friend. “Break -open the door?” - -“No, that might lead to a breach of the peace. You may either 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 receive and entertain the -guest.[22] If you sue him you will have to prove that he kept a common -inn;[23] that you are a traveler,[24] and came to the inn and demanded -to be received and lodged as a guest; that he had sufficient -accommodation,[25] and refused to take you in, although you were in a -fit and proper state to be received,[26] 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 one give his name, or may he travel _incog._ and -without exhibiting his cacography?” - -“An innkeeper has no right to pry into a guest’s affairs, and insist -upon knowing his name and address,”[27] I replied. - -“Talking about registers,” began my friend Jones, but in tones so low -that what he said must go in the foot notes.[28] - -“Last summer,” continued talkative Jones, “I tried to get quarters late -one Saturday night at a village inn, but the proprietor refused to admit -me; and a venerable female put her head out of the window, like Sisera’s -mother, and told me that they were all in bed, and that they could not -take in those who profaned the Sabbath day.” - -“You might have sued for damages,” I said, “for the innkeeper being -cosily settled in his bed for the night, or it being Sunday, makes no -difference in a traveler’s rights;[29] 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 before one could claim the -rights of a guest--is that an essential?” - -“Yes, a _sine qua non_. Bacon says: ‘Inns are for passengers and -wayfaring men, so that a friend or a neighbor shall have no action as a -guest’[30] (unless, indeed, the neighbor be on his travels[31]). The -Latin word for an inn is, as of course you know, _diversorium_, because -he who lodges there is _quasi divertens se a via_.”[32] - -“What wretched food!” said my wife, as she helped herself to a biscuit. -“’Tis enough to poison one.” - -“It is by no means a feast of delicacies--the brains of singing birds, -the roe of mullets, or the sunny halves of peaches,” returned our -friend. - -“Well, my dear,” I replied, “a publican 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;[33] and this is so even if a servant provides the goods -without the master’s express directions.”[34] - - * * * * * - -A stroll through the village, and a little moralizing beside the -scarcely cold embers of the rival inn, where - - “Imagination fondly stooped to trace - The parlor splendors of that festive place, - The whitewashed wall, the nicely sanded floor, - The varnish’d clock that clicked behind the door,” - -passed the time until Darkness spread her sable robe over all the -earth. We sat outside our inn in the fresh air, and listened while the -myriad creatures which seem born on every summer night uplifted in joy -their stridulous voices, piping the whole chromatic scale with infinite -self-satisfaction. Innumerable crickets sent forth what, perhaps, were -gratulations on our arrival; a colony of tree-toads asked, in the key of -C sharp major, after their relatives 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-places were beside -pastures green in cooling streams. For a while we listened to this -concert of liliputians rising higher and higher as Nature hushed to -sleep her children of a larger growth. Ere long, the village bell tolled -the hour for retiring. I told the 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 the 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 attacked us right vigorously, skirmishing bravely and as -systematically as if they had been trained in the schools of that -educator of fleas, Signor Bertolotto, only his students always crawl -carefully along and never hop, 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 came a detachment of the B-flat brigade, of aldermanic -proportions, pressing slowly on. Again there was a search as for hidden -treasures. Faugh! what a time we had, pursuing and capturing, crushing -and decapitating, hosts of creatures not to be named in ears 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 slumber-- - - Not poppy, nor mandragora, - Nor all the 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 find 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 -apparel, and sat down beside the window to watch for the first bright -tints heralding the advent of the glorious king of day. - -“Must we pay for such wretched accommodation?” asked my wife, -mournfully. I shook my head as I replied: - -“I fear me so.[35] We might escape;[36] but I don’t want to have a row -about my bill in a dollar house.” - -As soon as morning broke we began our preparations for an early -departure from the purgatory in which we had passed the night. When we -had descended, and had summoned the lady 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 flea in the whole house!” - -“A _single_ flea!” retorted my wife, with withering scorn; “a _single_ -flea! I should think not; for I am sure that they are all married, and -have large families, too.” - -“Yes,” I added, - - ‘The little fleas have lesser fleas - Upon their backs to bite ’em; - The lesser fleas have other fleas, - And so _ad infinitum_.’” - - - - -CHAPTER II. - -CITY HOUSE AND MANNERS. - - -The next evening, as Mrs. Lawyer and this present 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 _ennui_ 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 entertainment -of all comers for gain.’[37] Judge Bayley defined it to be a house where -the traveler is furnished with everything he has occasion for while on -the way.”[38] - -“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 -salis_ but with a whole cellar full of that condiment. For instance, the -landlord is not bound to provide clothes or wearing apparel for his -guest.[39] 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 be -a house, the owner of which holds out that he 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 which they are fit to -be received.[40] Another judge says it is a public house of -entertainment for all who choose to visit it as guests without any -previous agreement as to the time of their stay or the terms of -payment.[41] 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 attendants, is a common -innkeeper.[42] But Bacon, very wisely and prudently, adds to this -description the important words ‘for a reasonable compensation.’[43] 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 such.[44] Stables -are not necessary to constitute an inn;[45] nor is it essential that -the meals should be served at _table d’hôte_.[46] A house for the -reception and entertainment principally of emigrants arriving at a -seaport and usually remaining but a short time, is yet an inn.”[47] - -Here I stopped because I had nothing more to say; but seeing that my -wife was gazing out of the window in a most inattentive manner, yet not -wishing her to think that my fund of knowledge was exhausted, 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 rationally.” - -A pause ensued, during which, with great amusement and no little -surprise at the facts and doctrines enunciated, we listened to the -following dialogue between two rosy-cheeked Englishmen sitting in the -seat behind us: - -First Briton (_loquitur_).--“How disgusting it is to see those vile -spittoons in hotels, in private houses, in churches--everywhere; and -notwithstanding 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 fortune ever attending upon their designs and plans because they -expectorate so much.” - -First B. (rather dazed).--“I don’t understand you.” - -Second B. (in tones of surprise at the other’s want of -comprehension).--“Don’t you know that many Englishmen spit if they meet -a white horse, or a squinting man, or a magpie, or if, inadvertently, -they step under a ladder, or wash their hands in the same basin as a -friend? In Lancashire, boys spit over their fingers before beginning to -fight, and travelers do the same on a stone when leaving home, and then -throw it away, and market people do it on the first money they receive.” - -First B. (interrogatively).--“But, if these dirty people do indulge in -this unseemly habit, what then?” - -Second B.--“Why, they consider it a charm that will bring good luck, or -avert evil. Swedish peasants expectorate thrice if they cross water -after dark. The 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.--“Because the mouth was once considered the only portal by -which evil spirits could enter into a man, and by which alone they could -be forced to make their exit; and the idea was to drive the fiends out -with the saliva. The Mussulmans made spitting and nose-blowing a part of -their religious ceremonies, for they hoped thereby to free themselves -from the demons which they believed filled the air; and a Kamtschatkan -priest, after he has sprinkled with holy water the babe brought to the -baptismal font, spits solemnly to north and south, to east and west.” - -A wild shriek of the locomotive, announcing that we were drawing near -our destination, and the necessary preparations consequent upon such -arrival, prevented us listening further to this conversation. 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. - -We drove up to the “Occidental House” in the bus belonging to that -famous establishment. The satchel of a fellow-traveler was lost off the -top of the carriage. I endeavored to console him with the information -that years ago, where the keeper of a public house gave notice that he -would furnish a free conveyance to and from the cars to all passengers, -with their baggage, and for that purpose employed the owner of certain -carriages to take passengers and their baggage, free of charge, to his -house, and a traveler, who knew of this arrangement, drove in one of -these cabs to the hotel, and on the way there had his trunk lost or -stolen through the want of skill or care of the driver, the innkeeper -was held liable to make good the loss. The court that decided the point -held that it was immaterial whether he was responsible as a common -carrier or as an innkeeper, as in either case the consideration for the -undertaking was the profit to be derived from the entertainment of the -traveler as a guest, and that an implied promise to take care of the -baggage was founded on such consideration.[48] - -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 be an agent for a rival house -made some very disparaging remarks with regard to the “Occidental,” with -more vehemence than elegance or truthfulness, evidently 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” people -heard him, for if they had he might speedily have become the defendant -in an action at law, for misstatements like his are actionable.[49] - -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 afforded). The small and dirty entrance of -the one was exchanged for a spacious and lofty hall in the other, paved -with marble and fitted up with comfortable sofas and cushions, on which -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 lighted and elegantly furnished drawing-rooms, with -carpets so soft that a footstep was no more heard than a passing shadow, -and gorgeous mirrors reflecting the smiles, faces and elaborately -artistic toilets of city belles, and the trim figures and prim -moustaches of youthful swells; a pretty little room, yclept an elevator, -neatly carpeted, well lighted, free from noxious scents, with -comfortable seats and handsome reflectors, led up on high, instead of -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 appearance. The -noble dining-hall, with its delicately tinted walls, its pillars and -gilded roof, with neatly dressed waiters, and the master of ceremonies -patrolling the room seeing to the comfort of the guests, the -arrangements of their places, and that each servant did his duty, gave a -zest to one’s appetite which the tempting viands increased a hundred -fold, and the soups, fish, relèves, entrées, game, relishes, vegetables, -pastry, and dessert of the _menu_ differed from the bill of fare of the -previous day as does light from darkness, sweet from bitter. - -As we were ascending in the luxuriously furnished, brilliantly lighted -and gently moving elevator, a ninnyhammer tried to get on after the -conductor had started. In doing so he well nigh severed the connection -between his ill-stored head and well-fed body. I told him that his -conduct was most foolhardy, for if he had been injured he could have -recovered nothing from the hotel proprietor, for the accident would have -been directly traceable to his own stupid want of ordinary care and -prudence.[50] - -At the dinner table we found that many of the people, notwithstanding -the luxurious surroundings, seemed quite oblivious of the sage advice -given by Mistress Hannah Woolley, of London, in the year of grace 1673. -That worthy says in her “Gentlewoman’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 bite your bread, but cut or -break it; and keep not your knife always in your hand, for that is as -unseemly as a gentlewoman who pretended to have as little a stomach as -she had mouth, and therefore would not swallow her peas 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 company near by ate as if he had never eaten in any place -save a shanty all the days of his life; he was not quite so bad, -however, as the celebrated Dr. Johnson, who, Lord Macaulay tells us, -“tore his dinner like a famished wolf, with the veins swelling in his -forehead, and the perspiration running down his cheeks;” but yet, in -dispatching his food, he 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 he could be prevented on account of his style of -eating,” I replied, as the man began shoveling peas with a knife into -his mouth, which could not have been broader unless Dame Nature had -placed his auricular appendages an inch or two further back. (By the -way, how did they eat peas before the days of knives, forks, and -spoons?) - -“Do you mean to say that if an individual makes himself so extremely -disagreeable to all other guests, the proprietor has no right to ask him -to leave?” queried Mrs. L. - -“Well, my dear, it was held in Pennsylvania that the host might request -such an one to depart; and that if he did not, the hotel-keeper might -lay his hands gently upon him and lead him out, and if resistance was -made might use sufficient force to accomplish the desired end.”[51] - -“Then please tell that waiter to take that man 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.[52] I have known -$600 damages given to a guest for an assault on him by his landlord.[53] -I remember, too, a case where a man rejoicing in the trisyllabic name of -Prendergast was coming from Madras to London round the Cape of Storms, -having paid his fare as a cabin passenger. His habit was to reach across -others at table to help himself, and to take potatoes and broiled bones -in his fingers, devouring them 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-class passenger, excluded him from the cabin, and would not allow -him to walk on the weather side of the ship. On reaching England, -Prendergast sued the captain for the breach of his agreement to carry -him as a cuddy passenger; the officer pleaded that the conduct of the -man had been vulgar, offensive, indecorous and unbecoming, but the son -of Neptune was mulcted in damages to the tune of £25, Chief Justice -Tindal observing that it would be difficult to say what degree of want -of polish would, in point of law, warrant a captain in excluding one -from the cuddy. Conduct unbecoming a gentleman in the strict sense of -the word might possibly justify him, but in this case there was no -imputation of the want of gentlemanly principles.[54] But here, at last, -comes our dinner; let us show our neighbors how to handle knife and fork -aright.” - -And a very good dinner it was, too, although dished by a cook who had -not the talents of the ancient knights of the kitchen who could -dexterously 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 need and necessity of each guest. They held to the -doctrine that the more the nourishment of the body is subtilized and -alembicated, the more will the qualities of the mind be rarefied and -quintessenced, too. For a young man destined to live in the atmosphere -of a royal court, whipped cream and calves’ trotters were supplied by -them; for a sprig of fashion, linnets’ heads, essence of May beetles, -butterfly broth, and other light trifles; for a lawyer destined to the -chicanery of his profession and for the glories of the bar, sauces of -mustard and vinegar and other condiments of a bitter and pungent nature -would be carefully provided.[55] As Lord Guloseton says, “The ancients -seem to have been more mental, more imaginative, than we in their -dishes; they fed their bodies, as well as their minds, upon delusion: -for instance, they esteemed beyond all price the tongues of -nightingales, because they tasted the very music of the birds in the -organ of their utterance. That is the poetry of gastronomy.” - -I noticed at a table near by a merry party. I afterward learned that it -was composed of a number of fast young men from the city, who had come -in to have a good dinner, and exhibit themselves, their garments, and -their graces before the assembled guests; and that, when the hour of -reckoning came, the needful wherewith to liquidate the little bill was -not forthcoming. The landlord insisted that each one was liable for the -whole, as there was no special agreement, (and this would generally be -the case[56]) and that one who was solvent should pay the reckoning for -all; but, unfortunately for Boniface, his clerk had been told beforehand -that that moneyed man was the guest of the others, who were all as poor -as Job’s peahens; so that the poor man had no recourse against the -deadheads, in this direction, at all events,[57] and even the moneyed -gent got a free dinner. The worthies swaggered out, singing in an -undertone the words of an Ethiopian minstrel appropriate to the -occasion. - - * * * * * - -As my wife was returning to her room after dinner, she met a poor woman, -whose daily walk in life was from the wash-tub to the clothes-line, -looking in vain for some miserable sinner who had departed leaving his -laundry bill unpaid. After endeavoring in vain to console the woman, -Mrs. Lawyer, (who had a Quixotic way of interfering in other people’s -troubles) came running back to me to ask if the hotel-keeper was not -bound to pay for the washing. I told her of course not, unless he had -been in the habit of paying the laundry bills of guests who had left; -then an undertaking to that effect might be inferred, and it might be -considered as evidence of an antecedent promise.[58] With this small -crumb of comfort, my wife returned to the user of soap and destroyer of -buttons. - -While sitting, _à la_ Mr. Briggs, in the smoking-room, “with my -waistcoat unbuttoned, to give that just and rational liberty to the -subordinate parts of the human commonwealth which the increase of their -consequence after the hour of dinner naturally demands,” and gently, (as -good Bishop Hall puts it) “whiffing myself away in nicotian incense to -the idol of my intemperance,” a fellow-puffer spoke to me about the -excessive charges of the house. - -I told him that in the good old days of yore, and perchance even yet, an -innkeeper who charged exorbitant prices might be indicted, and that our -ancestors were wont to have the rates fixed by public proclamation.[59] - -He then remarked that he would not mind about the prices, if the -landlord had allowed him to do a little business in the place. - -“Your right to lodge and be fed in the house gives you no right to carry -on trade here,”[60] I replied. - -“One of the waiters threatened to kick me yesterday for doing business.” - -“Oh, if you are assaulted by any of the servants, the proprietor is -liable to you in damages, though he was not himself present at the time, -or even consenting thereto,”[61] I returned. Then, fearing lest I might -be nourishing a viper in the shape of a book-agent, or vendor of patent -articles, I left the room, the words of the poet running through my -brain: - - “Society is now one polished horde, - Formed of two mighty tribes--the Bores and Bored.” - - - - -CHAPTER III. - -ACCIDENTS, ROOMS, DOGS. - - -Next morning, as we were arranging whither we would wend our way, I -proposed taking a bus. My wife remarked positively that she wished that -I would not use that vulgar word. I returned: - -“Humph! Did you ever hear the story about Lord Campbell and the -omnibus?” - -“What was it?” she asked. - -“A lawyer while arguing before him 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, remarked -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 spoke of an ‘omnibus.’ The counsel whom he -had shortly before corrected, jumped up with such promptitude that the -judge was startled into silence, exclaiming: ‘Pardon me, my Lord, the -carriage to which you draw attention is usually called ‘a bus’: that -pronunciation is open to no grave objection, 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 we got, and out of it we got, in course of time. We went up -and down and in and out and roundabout, seeing the sights and doing the -town like many another couple had done before us, and will do again -during that most awkward of seasons, the honeymoon. - -While my spouse gazed in at some lovely silks, sweet feathers, and ducks -of bonnets, unmindful of the troubles that Moses underwent in obtaining -the latter part of the Decalogue, I took the opportunity of instilling -some legal doctrines and decisions into her head. - -“Remember,” I said, “the solemn words of the poet: - - ‘Man wants but little here below, - Nor wants that little long.’” - -“I fear that a woman like myself will have to wait very long before she -gets her little wants supplied,” 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 be liable to pay all -your little bills. Once upon a time an English judge decided that a -milliner could not make a husband pay £5,287 for bonnets, laces, -feathers and ribbons supplied to his dear little wife during a few -months.”[62] - -“No power on earth could make you pay that sum, or anything like it; so -don’t worry yourself, my darling,” coolly and somewhat sarcastically -remarked Mrs. Lawyer. - -“Please do not interrupt. In another case it was held that the price of -a sea-side suit, some £67, could not be collected from a husband--a poor -barrister--who had forbidden his wife to go to the watering place.”[63] - -“He must have been a very poor lawyer if he never had a suit that cost -more to some unfortunate client.” - -“Again, the Rev. Mr. Butcher”---- - -“I like that name for a parson,” again interposed my wife. “It suggests, -you know, a slender frame, a pale face, taper fingers.” - -I paid no heed, but went on: - ----- “Was excused payment of some £900 for birds--loreèes, avadavats, -lovebirds, quakers, cutthroats--furnished his wife during the short -space of ten months.”[64] - -“But I will not be as extravagant as any of those misguided ladies -were,” remarked my wife, most sensibly. - -“Well, then, there will be no trouble. Everything 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;[65] or false teeth;[66] -but, mind you, not quack medicines,[67] though you are a duck.” - -“I am glad to hear ‘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. - -“I presume it is time for lunch,” I replied. “Ah me! I wish lawyers in -this nineteenth 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. The clerk of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, entered on -his books that he paid to Robert Fylpott, learned in the law, for his -counsel given, 3s. 8d., with 6d. for his dinner. _Tempora mutantur._ -There’s a restaurant. Let us enter.” - -We entered accordingly, and a very good luncheon we had, except for one -slight _contretemps_. While engaged upon my macaroni soup, a long, -reddish thread--as I surmised--revealed itself to my vision. Calling the -waiter, I demanded how it came there. - -“Ah!” said the man, quite cheerfully, “I can tell you where that came -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 -pleased 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 -wondering amazement to the calculations made at an adjoining table. - -“I don’t see how a waiter can remember such a long list of things, and -tell what they all come to so rapidly; or how any two men could eat as -much as those two did,” she remarked to me. - -“Pshaw!” I replied, “that is nothing to Mr. Smallweed’s arithmetical -powers, or to the gastronomic achievements of himself and his friends.” - -“And pray what did Mr. S. do?” asked my wife. - -“Why, when their little luncheon was over, and he was asked by 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 6 and 3 marrows is 4 and 6 and 6 breads is 5 and -3 Cheshires is 5 and 3 and 4 pints of half-and-half is 6 and 3 and 4 -small rums is 8 and 3 and 3 Pollys is 8 and 6 and 8 and 6 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 umbrella. Silently I quitted the place, for I -knew that it had been decided that a restaurant is not an inn, so as to -charge the proprietor with the liabilities of an innkeeper toward -transient persons who take their meals there; (and the same rule applies -even though he does in fact keep in the same building an hotel, to which -the eating-house is attached;[68]) and therefore it would be useless to -expect the proprietor to make good the loss. Nor is a refreshment bar -(where persons casually passing by receive the good things of this life -at a counter) an inn, although it is connected with an hotel, and kept -under the same license, but entered by a separate door from the -street.[69] Where, however, a servant once asked permission to leave a -parcel at a tavern, and the landlady refused to receive it; the man, -being a thirsty soul, called for something to drink, putting the parcel -on the floor behind him while imbibing, and while thus the spirit was -descending more rapidly than it ever did in the most sensitive -thermometer, the package disappeared, and never was seen again by the -owner; yet the innkeeper was held responsible for the loss.[70] - -An umbrella was bought and money expended for divers little odds and -ends before we went back to the hotel for dinner. On our return, Mr. -Deadhead and his wife entered the hotel just before us. They were -country cousins of the proprietor’s, and had been asked to dinner, or -had come without an invitation. As he was opening an inside door a large -pane of glass fell out of it, and, slightly grazing his hand, shivered -into a thousand pieces on the marble floor. 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 fluid; for I remembered distinctly a similar accident -happening to my father’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 in which there was a glass door which it was necessary for -him (S.) to open for the purpose of leaving, and which he, by the -permission of the owner, and with his knowledge, and without any warning -from him, lawfully opened, for the purpose aforesaid, as a door which -was in a proper condition to be opened, yet, by and through the -carelessness, negligence, and default of defendant, the door was then in -an insecure and dangerous condition, and unfit to be opened; and, by -reason of said door being in such insecure and dangerous condition, and -of the then carelessness, negligence, default, and improper conduct of -the defendant in that behalf, a large piece of glass fell from the door, -and wounded Southcote--yet, although he said all this, the Court of -Exchequer, with Pollock, C. B, at its head, decided that no cause of -action against the proprietor was disclosed.[71] It was considered that -a visitor in a house was in the same position as any other member of the -establishment, so far as regards the negligence of the master or his -servants, and must take his chance of accidents with the rest.[72] Baron -Bramwell, however, well said that where a person is in the house of -another, either on business or for any other lawful purpose, he has a -right to expect that the owner will take reasonable care to protect him -from injury, and will not leave trap-doors open down which he might -fall, or take him into a garden among spring-guns and man-traps.[73] - -At dinner--to which, in addition to the various condiments provided by -mine host, we ourselves brought that best of sauces, hunger--there was -seated at a neighboring table Mrs. Deadhead, a friend of the -proprietor’s, as I have said, a lady of considerable amplitude of -person, and extensively bedecked with the diamonds of Golconda, the gold -of Australia, the lace of Lyons, the feathers of South Africa, the -millinery of New York, and attired in a silk dress of most fashionable -shape, color, and make. 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 placed the soup in her ladyship’s -lap--minus the plate. Great was the commotion, loud the reproaches, -abject the apologies. - -My wife thereupon whispered to me that the upset would not have mattered -much if the soup was any like hers. - -“Why not?” I queried, in some surprise, and anxious to learn as speedily -as possible the chemical 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 -proprietor--at least, that legal luminary, Pollock, C. B., so insinuated -on one occasion.[74] - -My wife grew fidgety because the waiters were somewhat tardy in filling -her orders. - -“Look,” she said, “at those lazy fellows! Half a dozen of them doing -nothing, while we are kept waiting, still waiting.” - -“Doubtless,” I replied, “they have been deeply impressed with the truth -of that grand old Miltonic line: - - ‘They also serve who only stand to wait.’” - - * * * * * - -While taking my post-prandial smoke, my interrogator of the previous -evening again approached me, and asked, in a grumbling voice, 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 selecting the apartment -for each guest, and, if he finds it expedient, may change the room and -assign his patron another. There is no implied contract that one to whom -a particular room has been given shall retain it so long as he chooses -to pay for it.[75] You pay your money, but you don’t take your choice.” - -“But I liked the room so much,” said Mr. Complaining Grumbler. - -“It matters not. The proprietor is not bound to comply with your -caprices.[76] When you go to an hotel you have only a mere easement of -sleeping in one room, and eating and drinking in another, as Judge Maule -once remarked.”[77] - -“Can he turn me out of the house altogether?” - -“Certainly not, if you behave yourself; unless, indeed, you neglect or -refuse to pay your bill upon reasonable demand.”[78] - -“I am going away by the night train,” said Mr. C. G., “and I did not -wish to go to bed; so he insisted upon taking my room, and told me I -might stay in the parlor until I left.” - -“And quite right, too. Although he cannot make you go to bed, or turn -you out of doors because you do not choose to sleep, still you cannot -insist upon having a bed-room in which to sit up all night, if you are -furnished with another room proper for that purpose.”[79] - -“I intend returning in the afternoon; can he refuse to take care of my -traps while I am absent?” - -“I fancy not, for a temporary absence does not affect the rights of a -guest.[80] 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 with -the host, and in a few days comes back, but in the meantime his goods -are stolen, he has no action against the host, for at the time of -stealing he was not his guest, and by keeping the hamper the innkeeper -had no benefit, and therefore is not chargeable with the loss of it. But -it would be otherwise if the man is absent but from morn to dewy -eve;[81] and where, in New York State, a guest, after spending a few -days at an hotel, gave up his room, left his valise--taking a check for -it--and was gone eight days, without paying his bill; on returning, he -registered his name, took a room, and called for his bag, when another -appeared in its place, having the duplicate check attached: the Court of -Common Pleas held that, whether the case was considered as an ordinary -bailment, or as property in an inn keepers’ hands, on which he had a -lien, he was bound to exercise due care and diligence, and that he must -account for the loss, the changing of the check being evidence of -negligence.”[82] - -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 my exit, I heard him say: - -“Pardon me--one inquiry more: I was at the St. Nicholas last week when -it was burnt down, and I lost some of my clothes. Is the owner liable to -make good the damage sustained?”[83] - -I heeded not, and went to seek my wife. After some search through the -magnificent drawing-rooms of our sumptuous hotel, I at length found her -in an elegant parlor, seated at a piano, and gently playing some sweet -melodies. As I approached, she motioned me to be cautious. When I -reached her, I saw that a large spider was stationed at the edge of the -piano cover, apparently 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, hand over hand, up his 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 thing?” - -“No, but I have read of it,” I replied. “Michelet, 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 violin, was -forced to practice long weary hours in solitude. There was a spider, -however, in the room, 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. Little Berthome needed no other listener to -kindle his enthusiasm. 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 a 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 a -suspicious manner. - -“Then there was also the musical spider of Pellison”---- A little -snarleyow of a dog 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 following--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 in his arduous office) in -holding that a guest cannot, under any circumstances, insist upon -bringing a dog into any room in a hotel where other guests are. On the -same occasion on which Judge Manisty expressed his views, Kelly, C. B., -remarked that he would not lay down the rule positively that under no -circumstances would a guest have a right to bring a dog into an inn; -there might possibly, he observed, be circumstances in which, if a -person came to an inn with a dog, and the innkeeper refused to put up -the animal in any stable or outbuilding, and there was nothing that -could make the canine a cause of alarm or an annoyance to others, its -owner might be justified in bringing it into the house. His lordship, -however, considered that a landlord had a right to refuse to provide for -the wants of a visitor who insisted upon coming with two very large St. -Bernard mastiffs, one a fierce creature, that had to be muzzled, the -other a dog of a gentler nature, but somewhat given to that bad habit -referred to in those Proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah, king -of Judah, copied out, and by the apostle St. Peter in his second -epistle.[84] - - * * * * * - -The next day there was a gentle ripple of excitement pervading the -house. Two cases of larceny 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 correctness of these adjectives; for I -had a very pleasant chat--to call it by a mild name--with her one day, -while Mrs. Lawyer was lying down after dinner) had a sitting-room and -bedroom _en suite_, so arranged that when the sitting-room door was open -one could see the entrances into both bedrooms. Mrs. B., being in her -room, laid upon the bed her reticule, in which was a by no means -despicable 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 proud to run a -short errand for her kind mamma--for the bag; but lo! it was gone, and -was never again found by a member of the Blank family; for - - “In vain they searched each cranny of the house, - Each gaping chink 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 -smoking-room. When he went to bed he had placed his watch and money on a -table in his room, left his door open, and, on morning dawning, was -surprised to find his time-piece and cash vanished with the early dew. -Other people would have been surprised if they had remained. - -I fell into conversation on the subject of these depredations with a -gentleman whom I afterward discovered to be a member of Lincoln’s Inn, a -place which bears very little resemblance to our American hotels. - -“’Tis very strange,” said Mr. Learned Inthelaw, “how history repeats -itself, even in insignificant matters.” - -I bowed, and remarked: “A very sensible man once observed that there was -nothing new under the sun.” - -“He did not live, however, in this our nineteenth century,” was the -reply. “But what I was going to say was that there are two cases -reported in our English law-books exactly similar to the two occurrences -of to-day.” - -“That is singular. What were the decisions?” - -“In the reticule case,[85] the hotel-keeper was held responsible for the -loss; in the other,[86] it was considered that the guest had been guilty -of negligence so as to absolve the host. You know that 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 innkeeper;[87] and in such cases he is not -freed from his grave responsibility by showing that neither himself nor -his servants are to blame, but in every event he is liable unless the -loss or injury is caused by the act of God, or the queen’s enemies, or -the fault, direct or implied, of the guest[88]--and that even though the -poor man has not only not been negligent, but has even been diligent in -his efforts to save the property of his guest.”[89] - -“The rule is the same with us,”[90] I replied, “and it extends to all -personal property the guest brings with him, whatever may be the value -or the kind.[91] And if the proprietor happens to be absent he is still -liable for the conduct of those he has left in charge.[92] Innkeepers, -as well as common carriers, are regarded as insurers of the property -committed to their care. The law rests on the same principles of policy -here as in England and other countries, and is wise and reasonable.”[93] - -“But it seems very severe upon innkeepers,” remarked 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 yield; for travelers, who must -be numerous in a rich and commercial country, are obliged to rely almost -implicitly on the good faith of innkeepers, whose education and morals -are often none of the best, and who might have frequent opportunities -for associating with ruffians and pilferers; while the injured guest -could seldom or never obtain legal proof of such combinations, or even -of their negligence, if no actual fraud had been committed by them.”[94] - -“What did the old Roman law say on the subject?” inquired old Dr. -Dryasdust, who considered that nothing done or said on the hither side -of the Middle Ages was worthy of consideration. - -“They, sir, were equally anxious to protect the public against dishonest -publicans, and by their edicts gave an action against them if the goods -of travelers were lost or hurt by any means except _damno fatali_, or by -inevitable accident; and even then Ulpian intimates that innkeepers were -not altogether restrained from knavish practices or suspicious -neglect.”[95] - -“Still,” said the by-stander aforesaid, “I do not see how the reticule -can be considered to have been under our landlord’s care.” - -“To render him liable it is not necessary that the goods be placed in -his special keeping, or brought to his special notice. If they be in the -inn, brought there in an ordinary and reasonable way by a guest, it is -sufficient to charge the proprietor.”[96] - -“Yes,” I chimed in, “and it does not matter in what part of the hotel -the goods are kept, whether ‘up-stairs, or down-stairs, or in the lady’s -chamber’: while they are anywhere within it, they are under the care of -Boniface, and he is responsible for their safe custody. He is equally -liable, whether baggage is put in a bedroom, a horse handed over to the -care of the hostler,[97] or goods placed in an outhouse belonging to -the establishment and used for that sort of articles.[98] My friend -Epps, on one occasion, went to an inn down in Mississippi, and had his -trunk taken to his bedroom, and it being broken into at night and the -money purloined, the innkeeper was held liable.”[99] - -“A friend of mine,” said the English gent, “who was in the employ 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; afterwards the -servant wished to carry it into the commercial room, but the owner -requested him to leave it where it was; the parcel mysteriously -disappeared, and the innkeeper had the pleasure of paying for it.”[100] - -“In fact, I believe an innkeeper cannot make his guest take care of his -own goods;[101] nor is a traveler bound to deposit his valuables in the -hotel safe, even though he may know that there is one kept for the -reception of such articles, and there is a regulation of the house -requiring articles of value to be so deposited,”[102] I remarked. - -“Are you not stating that rather broadly?” questioned my legal confrere. - -“No Vatican Council has proclaimed me infallible. I know full well that -when the poet said ‘to err is human,’ he spoke truth. Of course, I am -speaking only of the rule in States in which there is no special law or -statute on the point, limiting the liability of publicans,” I replied. - -“I think, however,” said Mr. Inthelaw, the Englishman, “that it has been -held that the innkeeper may refuse to be responsible for the 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.[103] And a guest who has actual notice of a regulation of the inn -as to the deposit of valuables, and has not complied with it, takes the -risk of loss happening from any cause, except, of course, the actual -sins of emission and commission of the landlord or his servants.”[104] - -“And very reasonably,” remarked a by-stander. - -“But clear and unmistakable notice of these regulations restricting the -publican’s liability must certainly be given,”[105] 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 convenience, 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. And, perhaps, this -distinction will explain the apparently contradictory decisions.”[106] - -“Doubtless the notice must be clear. Even a printed notification is not -sufficient. It must be brought home to the mind of the guest, or at -least to his knowledge, before he enters and takes possession of his -room, so that, if he does not like the regulations, he may go -elsewhere.[107] In one case, the register was headed with the notice, -‘Money and valuables, it is agreed, shall be 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.”[108] - -By-stander here remarked: “My father kept an inn in New York State, and -once told a man of the name of Purvis, when he arrived at the house, -that there was a safe for valuables, and that he would not be -responsible for his unless they were placed in it. Purvis, however, -neglected the caution, and left $2,000 in gold in a trunk in his -bed-room, locked the door, and gave the key to my father. Some thief -broke through and stole, and Purvis tried to make the old gentleman -responsible for the theft; but the court did not agree with him, and -considered that he alone must bear the loss.”[109] - -“The host is not liable for the loss of goods if, at the time of their -disappearance, they were in the exclusive possession of their -owner,[110] and it will generally be left to an intelligent jury to say -whether or not the articles were in the sole custody of the guest,”[111] -remarked Mr. Inthelaw. - -“What do you mean?” asked one. - -“For instance, where a Brummagem man, traveling for orders, came to an -inn with three boxes of goods; the travelers’ room did not meet with his -approbation, so he asked for another one up stairs, where he 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 he took his 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, though why he need have taken -the trouble to leave the door unlocked if the key was on the 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 the proprietor of the -house for damages, but got nothing. He applied for a new trial, but with -like success. Lord Ellenborough remarked that it seemed to him that the -care of the goods in a room used for the exhibition of the goods to -persons over whom the innkeeper could have no check or control hardly -fell within the limits of his duty as an innkeeper; that the room was -not merely intrusted to our friend in the ordinary character of a guest -frequenting an inn, but that he must be understood as having special -charge of it. And another learned judge gave it as his sentiments that -the traveler should be taken to have received the favor of the private -room _cum onere_; that is, he accepted it upon the condition of taking -the goods under his own care.”[112] - -“But,” I said, “of course, simply ordering goods to be placed in a -particular room is not such a taking under one’s own care as to absolve -an innkeeper from his responsibility.[113] I recollect a case where a -traveler, on arriving, requested his _impedimenta_, as old Cæsar used to -say, to be taken to the commercial room; they were, and they were -stolen, and the innkeeper was held bound to recoup the man, although he -proved that the usual practice of the house was to place the luggage in -the guest’s room, and not in the commercial room, unless an express -order was given to the contrary. The chief justice remarked that if mine -host had intended not to be responsible unless his guests chose to have -their goods placed in their sleeping apartments, or such other place as -to him might seem meet, he should have told them so.”[114] - -By-stander observed that the law seemed inconsistent, as there did not -appear to be much difference between the two cases. - -“Mr. Justice Holroyd distinguished the latter from the former case by -saying that the Birmingham man asked to have a room which he used for -the purposes of trade, not merely as a guest in the inn.[115] 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 innkeeper from liability, if the loss was not induced by the -negligence or misconduct of the guest,”[116] remarked one who knew -whereof he affirmed. - -“An hotel-keeper is of course liable for the conduct of another guest, -placed in a room already occupied, without the consent of the -occupant.[117] And where a guest left his door unlocked, because he was -told that he must either do so or get up in the night and open it, as -others had to share the room with him, the innkeeper was held liable for -everything lost.”[118] - -This very learned and intensely uninteresting 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 have changed,” remarked Mr. L. -Inthelaw. “You remember that in the sixteenth century the saying was: - - ‘Lever à cinq, diner à neuf, - Souper à cinq, coucher à neuf, - Fait vivre d’ans nonante et neuf.’ - -“And even in the early days of the reign of Louis XIV the dinner hour of -the court was eleven o’clock, or noon at the latest.” - -“Yes,” I replied, “I have noticed that the historians say that one of -the causes which hastened the death of Louis XII was his changing his -dinner hour from nine to twelve at the solicitation of his wife. What a -fine house this is!” - -“Well, sir,” was the response, “believe a stranger and a foreigner when -he tells you that, good as are some of the hotels in Europe, the -American ones surpass them all both in size and in general fitness of -purpose.” - -“I am glad to hear you say so. I presume that the great extent of our -territory, the natural disposition of our people to travel, our -extensive network of railways, have developed our hotel system, and made -it, as you say, without a parallel in the world,” I replied. - -“Have you traveled much, sir?” asked Mrs. Lawyer. - -“Yes, well nigh all round the world. And so, I flatter myself, I have -had more experience in hotels than most men.” - -“You must have seen a great variety,” I remarked. - -The Englishman smilingly replied: “In far off China I have carried about -my own bedding from inn to inn, not caring to occupy that in which a -Celestial, a Tartar, or a Russian had slept the night before. In France, -I have taken around my little piece of soap, an almost unknown luxury in -Continental hotels. In India, I have lodged in the dak bungalows -provided 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 remember -once stopping 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 flew in -and out and roundabout at their pleasure; in the bed-room a colony of -ants swarmed over the floor, while in my third room cockroaches and -other creeping things gave a variegated hue to the pavement; everything -else was in keeping.” - -“Horrors!” exclaimed Mrs. L. - -“Unpleasant, to say the least,” I remarked, “unless, indeed, you were a -naturalist.” - -“I think,” continued our traveled friend, “that one never feels at home -in an European hotel. You never know your landlord or your -fellow-sojourners; the _table d’hôte_ in the grand dining-halls prevents -all intercourse between the guests; they never have a smoking-room, a -billiard-room, a bar-room, or a bath-room; if you want to do ‘tumbies’ -you are furnished with a regular 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 -my window in the gloaming, I saw a man trundling a handcart containing a -bath and some barrels. In a few minutes two men solemnly ushered this -identical tub into my room, then in three successive trips they brought -in three barrels of water, two cold, the other hot; a sheet was spread -over the bath, and the water allowed to gurgle out of the bunghole into -it, while with uprolled sleeve the swarthy Italian mingled the hot and -the 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 apparatus. Actually there was neither bath nor water -in the hotel, although the Arno rolled beneath its windows. As you say, -bath-rooms are unknown in civilized Europe.” - -“Then, again,” I said, “if you want your dinner, and are not at _table -d’hôte_, you must write out a list of what you want as long as a -newspaper editorial, hand it in, and wait longer than it would take to -set it up in type before the eatables appear. I have known people wait -an hour at swell hotels, and then go away unsatisfied.” - -“There are plenty of hotels in all large English towns,” said our -friend; “but none a quarter of the size of the large caravansaries to be -found in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, or San Francisco. Their -exteriors are rather fine, a few rooms are well furnished; but, on the -whole, they are dark and dingy.” - -“Were you ever at the Grand Hôtel du Louvre, in Paris?” asked my wife. - -“Yes. What a splendid place it is! The dining-room is not the largest, -but it is as fine as any in the world; its ornamentation is so chaste, -its chandeliers so splendid, its mirrors so magnificent, and the dinner -is perfection; in fact, as some one says, it is the elysium of the -_bon-vivants_ and the paradise of the esthetic. But if I go on in this -style you will take me for a ‘runner’ for first-class hotels.” We then -passed on to another subject, as the reader must to another chapter. - - - - -CHAPTER IV. - -GUESTS, WAGERS, AND GAMES. - - -A fashionable young gent--a dweller in the city--(on whose face nature, -as in the case of the Honorable Percy Popjoy, had burst out with a -chin-tuft, but, exhausted with the effort, had left the rest of the -countenance smooth as an infant’s cheek) had been enjoying himself with -some kindred spirits, (and some spirits far stronger, too,) and being -belated, as well as rather bewildered, with the potations of the -evening, went to bed in our hotel. The next morning he found himself the -possessor of a splitting headache, but minus his gold repeater; so he -kindly and condescendingly consulted me upon the subject of the -proprietor’s liability to make good his loss. - -I told him that in my opinion he had better save up his money and buy a -new watch, for there were several reasons why the hotel-keeper need not -give him one. - -“What are they?” he asked. - -“We need not consider,” I replied, “the question 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 say that because your -intoxication contributed to the loss, therefore the landlord is not -liable.[119] The fact that you were not a traveler is sufficient to -prevent your recovering. Long since it was laid down in old Bacon that -inns are for passengers and wayfaring men, so that a friend or a -neighbor can have no action as a guest against the landlord.”[120] - -“What in thunder have I to do with what 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 pig 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 reply, “if you will so accept it.” - -“Then I would ask,” continued my interrogator, “must a man be a certain -length of time at an hotel before he is entitled to the privileges of a -guest?” - -“Oh, dear, no! Merely purchasing temporary refreshment at an inn makes -the purchaser a guest and renders the innkeeper liable for the safety of -the goods he may have with him,[121] if he is a traveler.” - -“But who is a traveler?” - -“One who is absent from his home, whether on pleasure or business.[122] -A townsman or neighbor, who is actually traveling, may be a guest.[123] -In a New York case, where a resident of the town left his horses at the -inn stables, it was decided that the proprietor was not liable for -them.[124] So if a ball is given at an hotel the guests present cannot -hold the proprietor liable for any losses occurring while they are -tripping the light fantastic toe, as he did not receive them in his -public capacity.”[125] - -“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 not be -considered a guest;[126] if, on the other hand, he leaves a horse, he -becomes entitled to all the privileges and immunities of a guest, even -though he himself lodges elsewhere.”[127] - -“Why the difference?” quoth one. - -“I might, perhaps, be more correct if I said that on this point the -authorities are antagonistic.[128] 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 thing.[129] One need not, however, -take all his meals or lodge every night at the inn where his baggage is. -It is sufficient if he takes a room and lodges or boards at the house -part of the time.”[130] - -“I think I have heard that if one makes an agreement for boarding by the -week, he ceases to have the rights of a guest,” said the previous -speaker. - -“The length of time for which a person resides at an hotel does not -affect his rights, so long as he retains his transient character;[131] -nor does he cease to be a guest by proposing after his arrival to remain -a certain time, nor by his ascertaining the charges, nor by paying in -advance, nor from time to time as his wants are supplied,[132] nor even -by arranging to pay so much a week for his board, if he stays so long, -after he has taken up his quarters at the house;[133] but if when he -first arrives he makes a special agreement as to board,[134] or for the -use of a room,[135] he never becomes a guest, and the innkeeper’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 the loss of his goods, though not of the boarder’s.”[136] - -“And when does a person cease to have the rights of a guest?” again -queried the questioner. - -I replied, “An innkeeper’s liability, as such, ceases when the guest -pays his bill and quits the house with the declared intention of not -returning, and if he then leaves any of his possessions behind him, the -landlord is no longer liable for their safe keeping, unless he has taken -special charge of them, and then only as any other common bailee would -be.[137] And this appears to be so, even when an arrangement has been -made for the keep of the guest’s horse.[138] Unless specially -authorized, a clerk cannot bind his master by an agreement to keep -safely a guest’s baggage after he leaves.”[139] - -“But supposing one pays his bills and goes off expecting 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 porter of the inn took charge of the baggage, promising -to deliver it for her at the cars. He lost two of the pieces, and it was -held that the liability of the hotel-keeper continued until such -delivery was actually made.[140] On the same principle that when an -innkeeper sends his porter to the cars to receive the baggage of -intending guests, he is responsible until it is actually re-delivered -into the custody 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 until -the baggage was actually put on board.[141] The liability for baggage -left with an innkeeper with his consent, continues for a reasonable time -after the settlement of the bill, and even after a reasonable time he is -responsible for gross negligence.[142] Where a visitor had actual notice -that the landlord would not be responsible for valuables unless put -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.[143] 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 brought down.[144] 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 proper 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 Buller, J., once remarked, a bet on a lady’s -age, or whether she has a mole on her face, is void. No person has a -right to make it a subject of discussion in a court of justice, whether -she passes herself in the world to be more in the bloom of youth than -she really is, or whether what is apparent to every one who sees her, is -a mole or a wart; although a lady cannot bring an action against a man -for saying she is thirty-three when she passes for only twenty-three, -nor for saying she has a wart on her face. Nor will the courts try a -wager as to whether a young lady squints with her right eye or with her -left.[145] And Lord Mansfield came to very much the same conclusion in -discussing the law in a celebrated wager case concerning the gender of a -certain individual,[146] because, as his lordship remarked, actions on -such wagers would disturb the peace of individuals and society.” - -“Confound it, the fellow seems to have swallowed a law library,” -muttered one man; while another said, - -“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;’[147] also, upon a wager of a ‘rump and dozen’ whether one of the -betters were older than the other.[148] 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 first was held good, although one old man was defunct at the time, -the fact not being known to the parties.[149] But Lord Ellenborough -refused to try an action on a wager on a cock-fight.”[150] - -“Although at common law many wagers were legal,” remarked the English -gentleman alluded to aforetime, “still, in England, as the law now -stands, all wagers are null and void at law,[151] and if the loser -either cannot or won’t pay, the law will not assist the winner;[152] but -either party may recover the stake deposited by him, before it is paid -over to the winner by the holder. That point was settled in the case of -a genius who bet all the philosophers, divines, and scientific -professors in the United Kingdom, £500, that they could not prove the -rotundity and revolution of the earth from Scripture, from reason, or -from fact, the wager to be won by the taker if he could exhibit to the -satisfaction of an intelligent referee a convex railway, canal, or -lake.”[153] - -“Was the referee satisfied?” asked a bystander. - -“Yes; it was proved to his satisfaction that on a canal, in a distance -of six miles, there was a curvature to and fro of five feet, more or -less. And then the man asked his stake back, and got it, too.” - -“In New York,” I said, “it has been held, under a statute giving the -losing party a right of action against the stake-holder for the stake, -whether the stake has been paid over by the stake-holder or not, and -whether the wager be lost or not, that the holder is liable to the -loser, although he had paid over the stake by his directions.[154] And -in several of the States, if the wager is illegal, the stake-holder is -liable to be made refund the stakes, notwithstanding payment to the -winner.”[155] - -“Such decisions are subversive of all honor and honesty,” said a betting -looking character. - -“Not so. A bet should be a contract of honor, and no more. One should -not bet unless he can trust his opponent. The time of the courts of law -should not be taken up by such matters.” - -“Are the American courts as hard upon wagers as the English?” asked the -Englishman. - -“Quite so,” I replied. “In some parts of the country they have been -prohibited by statute, and some courts have denied them any validity -whatever. In Colorado it was held that the courts had 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 number on a dice, or the character of -a card that may be turned up.[156] 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 to injure him, or if they are libelous, or indecent, or -tend to break the peace.[157] In some States it has been decided that -wagers upon the result of elections are against public policy, and -therefore void. In California, during the presidential campaign of 1868, -a man called Johnson bet that Horatio Seymour would have a majority of -votes in that State, while one Freeman bet that U. S. Grant would be the -lucky man. Mr. Russell was the stake-holder. After the result of the -election was known, Johnson demanded his money back, but Russell -honorably paid it over to the winner; so J. turned round and sued for -it. The Court held, that if Johnson had repudiated his bet and asked for -his money before the election, or before the result was known, he might -have got it, but that now he was too late.[158] Judge Sanderson remarked -that in times of political excitement persons might be provoked to make -wagers which they might regret in their cooler moments. No obstacles, he -thought, should be thrown in the way of their repentance, and if they -retracted 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, are not repentant tears, but such as -crocodiles shed over the victims they are about to devour.”[159] - -“Ah, then it has been judicially decided that crocodiles weep,” -sarcastically observed a bystander. - -From talking on wagering, we naturally passed to the subject of -gaming--a kindred vice. - -“I believe that in England there is a law forbidding an innkeeper to -allow any gaming on his premises,” I remarked. - -“Yes,” said the English barrister. “Any licensed innkeeper who suffers -any gaming or betting or unlawful games upon his premises, runs the risk -of being fined.”[160] - -“What do they consider gaming?” asked a rakish looking individual, who -seemed as if he understood practically what it was. - -“Playing at any game for money,[161] or beer, or money’s worth;[162] or -even exhibiting betting lists.”[163] - -“That seems precious hard,” quoth the rake. - -“In one case an innkeeper was punished for allowing his own private -friends to play at cards for money in his own private room, on the -licensed premises.”[164] - -“Not much liberty in England,” remarked the youth. - -“That was almost as bad as the tavernkeeper who was fined by some -energetic Yorkshire magistrate for being drunk in his own bed, in his -own house!”[165] observed another. - -“Farewell to the fond notion that an Englishman’s house is his castle!” -melodramatically exclaimed the youth. - -“But please allow me to say that Lust, J., held, in a very recent case, -that although an innkeeper, if drunk on his own premises while they are -open, is as much amenable to the penalty as if he was found drunk upon -the highway, yet it could never have been intended that an innkeeper who -is drunk in his own bedroom should be liable any more than a person--not -a publican--found drunk in his own private house,”[166] said the -Englishman. - -“And what, pray, may be the unlawful games which are 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 instrument, engine, or device in the nature of -dice, having figures or numbers thereon, and roulette, or rolly-polly; -and bull-baiting, bear-baiting, badger-baiting, dog-fighting, -cock-fighting, 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,[167] and lotteries and sweepstakes, except in cases of -art unions, where works of art are given as prizes, are all the games I -remember, that are prohibited by the Statutes of Henry VIII, George II, -and her present Majesty.” - -“May I ask what games you are permitted to indulge in? I do not see that -any are left, except the ‘grinning through a halter,’ spoken of in _The -Spectator_, in which highly intellectual and moral contest the rule is - - “‘The dreadfullest grinner - To be the winner.’ - -“Backgammon and all games played upon backgammon boards,[168] quoits, -tennis, and all games of mere skill, are perfectly lawful, unless played -for money or money’s worth.”[169] - -“And what of billiards?” - -“Oh, that is not unlawful unless played for money.”[170] - -“No wonder,” said Mr. Rake, “that people emigrate 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 passed these virtuous laws -took care to except from their operation their loyal palaces.”[171] - -“I would remind you, my good sir,” I said, “that gaming is forbidden in -almost all the States; that a judge in South Carolina said that if he -could have his own way, he would hold that a billiard room kept for -filthy lucre’s sake was a nuisance at common law;[172] and the same -judge decided that a bowling-alley kept for gain was a nuisance. In -Kentucky, it was held unlawful to throw dice to see who should pay for -the drinks;[173] in Virginia, betting on a game of bagatelle was held -illegal;[174] while in Tennessee, selling prize-candy packages was -decided to be gaming and indictable.”[175] - -“Alas, my country!” - -“By the way, do you remember, sir, the distinction the Ettrick Shepherd -drew between the card-playing of old people and that of young folk?” -asked an elderly bystander of Scotian descent. - -“No, what was it?” - -“He says, ‘you’ll generally fin’ that auld folk that play carrds have -been raither freevolous, and no muckle addicteed to thocht, unless -they’re greedy, and play for the 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 the harm in a gaem at cairds? It’s a -cheerfu’ noisy sicht o’ comfort and confusion; sic lookin’ into ane -ainither’s han’s! sic fause shufflin’! sic unfair dealin’! sic winkin’ -to tell your pairtner that ye hae the king or the ace! And when that -winna do, sic kicken’ o’ shins an’ treadin’ on taes aneath the -table--often the wrong anes! Then what gigglin’ amang the lasses! what -amiable, nay, love quarrels between pairtners! jokin’ an’ jeestin’, and -tauntin’ an’ toozlin’--the cawnel blawn out, an’ the sound of a thousan’ -kisses. That’s caird-playin’ in the kintra, Mr. North, and where’s the -man amang ye that’ll daur to say that it’s no’ a pleasant pastime o’ a -winter nicht, when the snaw is a cumin’ doon the hun, or the speat’s -roarin’ amang the mirk mountains?” - -“Give us that in English,” said the forward young man, as he left the -room. - - * * * * * - -There was a door between our bedroom and that adjoining. Upon taking -possession, we tried it; it appeared fast, but the key was not on our -side and the bolt was _hors du combat_. - -My wife had retired for the night, and was rapidly approaching that -moment when the rustling silk, the embroidered skirt, the pannier, the -braids, and elaborately arranged coiffure are exchanged for a _robe de -nuit_ of virgin white and a bob of hair on the head, _simplex -numditiis_. Suddenly the door between the two rooms creaked, squeaked, -and opened, and a creature clad in man’s attire protruded his head. -When, however, he saw that the room was occupied he drew back, laughing -to himself as he locked the door. - -On my arrival I found the partner of my joys and sorrows perched upon -the bed like Patience on a monument. Immediately chambermaids, -housemaids, and waiters were summoned, and informed that the key must -be taken out of that dreadful door and placed in the office. After his -voyage of discovery, Paul Pry had gone out, so a waiter entered the -room, took the key, and having hampered the lock of P. P.’s door, he -passed out _via_ our room, my wife gracefully retiring into a closet. -When we were quietly reclining on our downy couch we heard our neighbor -making fruitless efforts to regain his room; in vain he summoned the -chambermaid with her keys; in vain came the waiter with his. P. P. had -to pass the night in another apartment, minus his toilet appointments. - -“What would I have done,” asked my wife, “if that horrid wretch had come -into the room?” - -“Oh, we could have brought an action of trespass against him;[176] for -the possession we have of this room is quite sufficient to entitle us to -recover against a wrong-doer, although we could not maintain such an -action against the hotel-keeper if he should enter for any proper -purpose.”[177] - -“But that would not be a very great satisfaction,” said my wife. - -“Well, it is the best we could do, for we could not summon to our aid -the good spirits that interfered on behalf of the Lady Godiva to punish -Peeping Tom.” - -“But what if he had assaulted me?” she queried. - -“Well, I am afraid I would have had to settle the matter with him, for -an innkeeper is not bound to keep safe the bodies of his guests,[178] -but merely their baggage; that is, such articles of necessary or -personal convenience as are usually carried by travelers for their own -use, the facts and circumstances of each case deciding what these -articles may be.[179] Hush! What is that?” - -“A mosquito.” - -“Well, I must kill it.” - -“Never mind,” urged my wife. “Spare the little creature.” - -“I can’t stand their bites any more than my betters, and others who have -gone before. When they pierced the boots of the Father of his Country in -the New Jersey marshes, that exemplary individual indulged in bad -language; they drove back the army of Julian the Apostate, or apostle, -as Lord Kenyon called him; they compelled Sapor, the Persian, to raise -the siege of Nisibes, stinging his elephants and camels into madness; -they render some parts of the banks of the Po uninhabitable, and cause -people in some countries to sleep in pits with nothing but their heads -above ground. How, then, can you expect me to lie quietly here and wait -to have their horrid war-whoop sung in mine ears, as they dance in giddy -mazes from side to side, ere they plunge their sharp stilettos into my -shrinking flesh?” - -Forthwith I arose, lit the gas, and wandered round and round the room, a -white-stoled acolyte of science, with a towel in my hand, ready to take -the life of any member of the extensive family of _Culex Pipiens_. Long -was the search after the tireless musician, blowing his own trumpet as -enthusiastically as any other musical genius. My wife mocked me as I -danced about, flipping to the right and to the left; but at last Mrs. -Mosquito, swanlike, sang a song, which (to me, at least) was her -sweetest, as it was her last. - - - - -CHAPTER V. - -SAFES AND BAGGAGE. - - -Shortly after this, while traveling in a palace car, and during the -night, Mrs. Lawyer lost some of her paraphernalia, and felt strongly -inclined to make a row about it; but I quoted the sublime words of -somebody or other, “Let us have peace,” and then told her that the -owners of sleeping cars--who receive pay in advance from travelers -merely for the sleeping accommodations afforded by their cars, and this -only from a particular class of persons, and for a particular berth, and -for a particular trip--are not liable as innkeepers for money or -property 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. Chester M. Smith, who lost $1,180 on -the Pullman car “Missouri,” in the State of Illinois, in December, 1872, -was the innocent cause of the enunciation of the law upon this point. -The court held that a Pullman car is not a common inn--that it does not -accommodate persons indiscriminately--does not furnish victual and -lodging, but only lodging--affords no accommodation but a berth and -bed, and a place and conveniences for toilet purposes--does not receive -pay for caring, nor undertake to care, for the goods of travelers; but -the accommodation afforded is the result of an express contract, and -that the liabilities of innkeepers should not be extended to -others.[180] - -We had passed from one State into another, and had now taken up our -quarters at a magnificent hotel (its name will not be mentioned, for I -do not desire to injure any of the other houses). As we stepped out of -the cab, we entered a vast and handsome office of white marble, and -passed up to the splendid parlors and luxurious bed-rooms above. The way -I wrote our names in the register, and asked for dinner in our private -sitting-room, led the gentlemanly clerk to believe that myself and Mrs. -Lawyer had but lately entered 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 the soup tureen were -little Cupids, training a huge turtle; on the fish plates, as mermaids -and mermen, they were riding on salmon and dolphins; on the other -dishes, these naked little rascals flew about among beautiful birds, hid -under strawberry vines, or swung in spider-web hammocks from sprays of -wild blackberry; they dug in ravines like mountain gnomes, and pried and -lifted carrots with comical machinery, as though they were great bars -and ingots of yellow gold. Some of the dish-covers were shaped like -cabbages, and Cupids peeped from under every curling leaf; others, -again, gathered the vintage 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 a love perched on it, some -with torches, others with instruments of music; while the central stand -represented the ceremony itself; a scarlet cardinal-flower was saying -mass, and on the highest point of the dish, (which represented a church -tower,) a chorus of these sprites of Venus were tugging at the stamens -of a chime of fuchsias, like boys merrily pulling the ropes of wedding -bells. Each piece differed from the others, but there was a love in -every one. My wife was in raptures over the beautiful china, the -exquisite elves, the graceful flowers, the delicate sentiments, the -poetry in the artist’s soul thus moulded into form--hardened into a -thing of beauty, a joy forever. She could not restrain her exclamations -of delight, as course succeeded course, even in the presence of the -sedate attendants. Each new beauty called forth a new expression of -wonder and pleasure. She would scarce allow anything on her plate, so -anxious was she to study the devices and designs. I was calmer, being -older, hungrier, less ethereal, and feeling an inner consciousness that -a heavy bill would be the successor of these fairy scenes. - -Even this dinner came to an end, long though we toyed over the dessert. -The china afforded a ceaseless topic of conversation, until at length -little fairies of another kind began to hang upon the long black lashes -which veiled my wife’s beautiful brown eyes, and we passed into our -bed-chamber. - -Over the mantel-piece of our dormitory hung a card, on which was printed -the following: - - “TAKE NOTICE. - - “This building is fire-proof. - - “Several robberies having taken place during the night, in the - principal hotels, the proprietor respectfully requests all visitors - to use the nightbolt. - - “Money, jewelry, or articles of value are requested to be left at - the bar, otherwise the proprietor will not hold himself responsible - for any loss. - - “A. B., Proprietor.” - -My wife, who was rapidly increasing in legal knowledge and acuteness -under my able instructions, and was filled with the romantic idea of -becoming a veritable helpmate to me in my profession as well as in the -expenditure of my money, after reading the notice asked me if I was -going 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 apply to those articles of jewelry which a person usually carries -with him--his watch, for instance--because, as the learned judge puts -it, such an article would be of little service to the owner if it were -nightly stowed away in the hotel safe.[181] His lordship, however, was -inclined to think that if the watch were a richly jeweled one, set in -valuable diamonds, it would be wiser to give it to the proprietor to -keep.[182] - -“But that is an English decision,” remarked my wife, filled with the -genuine occidental opinion of oriental notions. - -“Well, supposing it is,” I made answer, “it is in accord with the -American; and a New York judge once said that although a watch, a gold -pen, and pencil-case might in some sense be called jewels, still they -should be considered part of a traveler’s personal clothing, or -apparel--and one after retiring to rest for the night is not expected to -send down his ordinary clothing or apparel to be deposited in the -safe.”[183] - -“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 the loss of things above a certain sum.” - -“No,” I replied, “and it’s all the better for us; for if the notice -required by law is not properly posted up in the office and bedrooms, -the proprietor cannot claim the benefit of the provision relieving him -from the liability imposed upon him by the common law of making good all -losses and damage to his guests’ goods and property, unless caused by -act of God, or of public enemies. It has been held in Iowa that such a -notice as this one does not affect the landlord’s position.”[184] - -“To what extent can he shirk his liability?” queried my wife, glancing -at her large and well-filled Saratoga. - -“That depends upon the particular statute of the country or State in -which he happens to live. If there is not a special law, no notice will -bind the guest, unless it can be proved that he has seen it before he -takes possession of his room,[185] or has assented to it.[186] In -England, an innkeeper, if he cause at least one copy of the law, -(printed in plain type,) to be exhibited in a conspicuous part of the -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 inn, to a greater extent -than £30, (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 the publican, or any servant in his employ; or when such goods have -been deposited expressly for safe-keeping with mine host, who, in such -case, may require them to be placed in a box, or other receptacle, -fastened and sealed up by the guest.[187] In New York, the law is very -similar,[188] 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 property in the -safe.[189] So particular are the courts upon this point, that when the -landlord of the Old Ship Hotel, Brighton, England, unintentionally had -the notice misprinted, so that the little word _act_ was omitted in the -sentence, which should have been, (as I have just stated) ‘where such -property shall have been stolen, lost, or injured through the willful -act, default, or neglect of such innkeeper, or any servant in his -employ,’ the Court of Appeal held that, as the notice contained no -statement which admitted the continuance of the common-law liability for -goods or property stolen, lost, or injured through the willful act of -the innkeeper or his servant, the proprietor was not protected. But Lord -Cairns carefully said that he was not prepared to hold that the -omission, in good faith, of a word or two, not material to the sense and -to the operation of the statute, would have such a disastrous -effect.”[190] - -“My husband, remember - - ‘Brevity’s the soul of wit, - And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,’ - -and be brief. How 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. But I was going on to say that though there is a tendency in -these degenerate days to lessen the great responsibility once imposed -upon these publicans and sinners, and to insist upon greater care on the -part of the guests, still statutes limiting the common-law liability of -innkeepers should not be extended to include property not fairly within -the terms of the acts. Where, for instance, as in the New York act, -money, jewels, or ornaments are exempted, then all property of a -different kind, including all things useful and necessary for the -comfort and convenience of the guest--all things usually carried and -worn as part of the ordinary apparel and outfit, as well as all things -ordinarily used or suitable to be used by travelers in doors or out, are -left in _statu quo ante_ the statute.” - -“And what may that be?” asked Mrs. L. - -“At the risk of the innkeeper.”[191] - -“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 pretty little Genevas neither jewels nor ornaments,” murmured -my wife _sotto voce_. - -“The law is very watchful,” I went on, “over benighted travelers, and -has decided that it is not;[192] nor is a watch and chain,[193] -although, by the way, the Wisconsin judges have decided that an -innkeeper 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.[194] The exemption is intended to apply only to -such an amount of money and to such jewels and ornaments or valuables, -as the landlord himself, if a prudent person and traveling, would put in -a safe (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 intention of the act to exempt the hotel proprietors from their -old common-law liability, unless the traveler emptied his pockets 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.[195] If, however, the innkeeper has complied -with the requirements of the act, he is not liable for jewelry stolen -from the bedroom, even though the guest has not been guilty of -negligence, provided he has had time and opportunity to make the -deposit.[196] My old friend, Mrs. Rosenplanter, was terribly unfortunate -in this respect. In July, 1863, she 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 dinner was on the table, they at -once dressed and went to dine. In about twenty minutes they returned to -their room and found that in the meantime their trunk had been broken -open and $300 worth of jewelry taken out. My friend sued the proprietor, -but the court ungallantly considered that she had had sufficient time -and opportunity to make the deposit, (though she had not been there an -hour) and so could not recover; although the judge admitted that no -person, under such circumstances, would have been likely to have handed -over his valuables to the innkeeper, and that there must always be a -brief period after the arrival of a guest before he can make the -deposit, and that during those golden moments the statute affords the -publican no protection. 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 in his -pocket, and neglects to deposit the same in the safe, the hotel-keeper, -if he has complied with the act, is exempt from all liability in case of -loss.”[197] - -“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 liable to make good any loss of goods or property. Surely, if a watch -is neither an ornament nor a jewel, within the meaning of the act,[198] -it is goods or property, else it is not good for much.” - -“It is very questionable whether the words ‘goods or property’ include -the necessary baggage of a traveler, his watch or personal effects, or -such money as a man in his travels usually carries with him; in fact, -down South it was held that it did not comprehend baggage.”[199] - -“Well, what would you call baggage?” persisted my wife. “It would 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 satisfied.” - -“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 he says that American beds rival marble or -granite tables for hardness. I am sure he never stopped at a good -hotel.” - -“Now for a Caudle lecture as to the baggage,” I said. “_Imprimis_, -whatever a traveler on this sublunary planet takes with him for his own -personal care and convenience, or even for his instruction and -amusement,[200] according to the habits and wants of the station of -society to which he belongs, either with reference to the immediate -necessities or the ultimate purpose of his wanderings, must be -considered personal luggage;[201] and the rules of law governing the -innkeeper’s liability for the safety of a guest’s baggage, are the same -as those which regulate the responsibility of common carriers as to a -passenger’s baggage.[202] Articles of jewelry, such as you would -usually wear, are baggage;[203] but not the jewels and regalia -of a society.[204] A watch,[205] except in Tennessee;[206] -finger-rings,[207] but not silver spoons,[208] come within the same -category. One man was allowed to have two gold chains, two gold rings, a -locket, and a silver pencil-case.”[209] - -“He must have been on his way to see his sweetheart, I fancy.” - -“Gold spectacles are baggage;[210] so are opera glasses,[211] a -silver-mounted pistol, even for a Southern lady,[212] duelling -pistols,[213] or a gun;[214] but not a colt.”[215] - -“A horse, then?” was facetiously queried. - -“Not even a hobby-horse.[216] Brushes and razors, pens and ink, are -baggage,[217] and perchance a present.[218] So are the manuscripts of a -student;[219] but not the pencil sketches of an artist;[220] on this -latter point, however, the doctors of the law disagree.[221] According -to one judge, a concertina, a flute, or a fiddle might pass muster; but -his fellows, however much music they had in themselves, determined not -to be moved with concord of sweet sounds, so they out-voted their -musical confrere.[222] Shakespeare saith, ‘Let no such man be trusted;’ -so, perchance, we must conclude that these judges were astray in their -law. In Pennsylvania, a journeyman carpenter may take his tools as -baggage,[223] though in Ontario he cannot,[224] any more than a -blacksmith can carry his forge, or a farmer his plow. Nor can a merchant -take his wares,[225] nor a commercial his samples,[226] nor a banker his -money,[227] nor a lawyer his papers,[228] though an M. D. may take his -surgical instruments;[229] nor may a seamstress carry her sewing -machine,[230] nor--Hark! - - “What strain is this that comes into the room, - At midnight, as if yonder gleaming light, - Which seems to wander like the moon, - Were seraph-freighted? Now it dies away - In a most far-off tremble, and is still; - Leaving a charmed silence. - Hark! one more dip of fingers in the wires! - One scarce-heard murmur struggling into sound, - And fading like a sunbeam from the ground, - Or gilded vanes of dimly visioned spires!” - -Here a fantasia on her nasal organ (which my wife always carried with -her, despite the decisions of anti-musical judges) vibrating -unmistakably through the chamber, dispelled the idea of heavenly -visitants, and informed me that my spouse had journeyed off to that land -of Nod, from whose bourn no baggage returns. Snoring, like yawning, is -infectious--sometimes; and this was one of the times. - - * * * * * - -“’Tis sweet to see the day dawn creeping gradual thro’ the sky,” and -feel that there is for one yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a -little folding of the hands to 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 spider’s webs, -but in the morning have become even fetters of brass; and that miserable -hour came in time to me. - -When I went down stairs to examine the register to see who had arrived -during the night, I found some excitement existing around the office. On -inquiry, (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 negligent in not telling -the clerk there was money in the book. - -“No, I wasn’t,” was the reply, “there was only $136 in it; and what but -money would you expect to be in a pocket-book--a tooth-pick?--a cigar? -I know that in Iowa an innkeeper had to cash up in a similar case,[231] -and I’ll make you do it if there is law or justice in this part of the -American eagle’s eyry.” - -“In Kentucky,” said a by-stander, who seemed to hail from that State, -“an hotel-keeper was held liable for the loss by robbery of pocket money -retained by a guest in his own possession.”[232] - -“And in Maryland,” said another Southerner, “it has been decided that a -traveler need not deposit in the office safe any money reasonably -necessary for his expenses that he may have with him.”[233] - -“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 purse be -surreptitiously disposed of, the landlord must make good his loss;[234] -yet still there is a very late New York decision, where my friend Hyatt -found to his cost, that where a landlord provides a safe, and puts up -the usual notices about it, and the visitor chooses not to place his -money in it, the proprietor of the establishment is not responsible for -the loss of any of the cash, not even for what would be required for -the guest’s ordinary traveling expenses.”[235] - -“You speak of money enough for one’s daily wants and traveling expenses -being all that for which an innkeeper is liable,” said a gentleman who -had hitherto been a quiet listener. - -“Well, sir, I do not like to speak dogmatically, but it seems that the -tendency of some modern decisions is to hold that the innkeeper should -not be liable for any money beyond that amount, even though put in a -safe, unless a special contract has been made, or it has been actually -delivered to the proprietor or his servant, with notice not only of the -kind of property it was, but also of the amount. It is not sufficient to -mark a package ‘money,’ for it is argued that it would be highly unjust, -and not founded upon any principle on which an innkeeper’s liability -rests, for a traveler to bring into an inn, unobserved, any amount of -valuables, without notice to the innkeeper, and hold him responsible for -their safe keeping. There should be a restriction or qualification of -such liability, if it exists; and that must be a warning to the -innkeeper of the extra risk he is about to run.[236] But the Court of -Appeals in New York State takes a different view, and holds that if one -complies with the law, and deposits his money in the safe, the innkeeper -is liable for the full amount, irrespective of the question whether or -not it was all required for the purposes of the journey.[237] - -“And, I might add,” said my interlocutor, “the celebrated Story made no -exception, and seemed to consider it one of the A B C principles of law -that an innkeeper is liable for the loss of the money of his 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 confined to such sums only as are necessary and designed -for ordinary traveling expenses.[238] Then, sir, our great Chancellor -Kent lays it down as admitting of no peradventure, that an innkeeper is -bound absolutely to keep 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 moneys of -the guest, their safe custody being part of the contract to feed and -lodge for a suitable reward.[239] If you are not satisfied with the -words of these men--alike the pride and the ornament of America--let us -cross the ocean and hear what Sir Wm. Blackstone saith; he speaketh -after this wise: that an innkeeper’s negligence in suffering a robbery -of his guest is an implied consent to the robbery, and he must make good -the loss.[240] Then Lord Tenterden held that there was no distinction -between money and goods; and all the other judges of the court said -‘amen.’”[241] - -“Excuse my interrupting you in your interesting remarks,” said I. - -“Quite excusable, sir, for I am only speaking in the cause of right, and -because I think some judges are inclined to cut loose from the safe -moorings of the old common law, rendered dear to us by the adjudications -of the learned men of the Bench for generations past, both in the old -and new worlds; and I am satisfied that a contrary doctrine will be -terrible in its effects in this great commercial community of ours, -where our business men spend so large a portion of their time at inns in -pursuit of their calling.[242] But what were you going to say?” - -“Simply,” I remarked, “that in the case before Tenterden the amount lost -was only £50, and it was stated to have been kept to meet daily expenses -only. He said he could see no distinction in this respect between an -innkeeper and a carrier; and there are 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 personal use,[243] unless the loss -was occasioned by the gross negligence of the carrier.” - -“Well, other English judges have likewise held that an innkeeper’s -liability is not restricted merely to the guests’ travelling -expenses;[244] and if we recross the mighty ocean we find our judges in -firm accord with their confreres.”[245] - -“But,” I said, “but in one case the amount was only two hundred -dollars,[246] and in another it was but twenty-five dollars.[247] And in -still another case decided, as you say, although the cash lost was more -than sufficient to pay the expenses of the man from whom it was taken, -still it was not his own; he merely held it to pay others, who were -stopping at the same house, and were witnesses in a suit which the -money-holder was superintending, or to pay their expenses at the -inn.”[248] - -“On the other hand,” said the defender of the rights of the people, “in -a California hotel there was this notice: ‘Deposit your valuables and -money in the safe at the office;’ and a guest accordingly deposited a -large amount of gold dust and coin, which the proprietor received -without objection. Afterwards, the clerk was knocked down and the safe -robbed, it not being locked, and the publican was held liable for the -whole amount.[249] And where a man had stolen from his room a package of -jewelry, which the clerk had told him would be quite safe there, the -host was held liable, even in New York State.[250] And so, in Kentucky, -where a safe was robbed by a discharged clerk, although in this last -case the innkeeper had told the guest that he would not be responsible -for any money put in it.[251] It seems to me to be somewhat absurd that -the law should say that unless you deposit your money in the hotel safe -the proprietor will not be liable for its loss, and then when you have -placed it in the absolute and immediate control of the innkeeper, and, -perhaps, his dishonest servant, you should be met the next day, when -asking for your own, by the smirking and bowing proprietor, remarking, -_suaviter in modo_: ‘True, sir you gave me twenty thousand dollars for -safe-keeping, and I put it in my safe; but, like all riches, it has -taken to itself wings and flown away. However, my dear sir, here are one -hundred dollars to pay your expenses, and take you comfortably to your -journey’s end.’” - -“There appears to be something to be said on both sides,” I remarked, -wearying of the discussion from which all others, save my adversary and -myself, had long since fled; for when the time comes for my funeral -expenses to be incurred, no one will be able (whatever my readers may -think) to say of me, as they did of Lord Macaulay, - - ‘There was no pain like silence, no constraint - So dull as unanimity. He breathed - An atmosphere of argument, nor shrunk - From making, where he could not find, excuse - For controversial fight.’” - -“But I have the best of it,” said my antagonist. “It is a case of New -York State, like Athanasius, _contra mundum_.” - -“At all events, you will agree with me that an innkeeper will not be -liable for loss of his guest’s money when he has intrusted it to the -care of some one else on the premises in whom he reposes -confidence,”[252] I replied. - -“Certainly; and I remember a case where a man gave a bag of money to the -step-daughter of an innkeeper with whom he was particularly intimate, -having courted her in marriage, and the bag having disappeared, the -owner thereof got nothing.[253] And I trust that you will not deny that -the innkeeper 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.”[254] - -“Oh, yes; and he is liable for their loss after the visitor has taken -them out preparatory to his departure.”[255] - -Here two bows were exchanged, two backs turned, and four legs walked -off. - - - - -CHAPTER VI. - -FIRE, RATS, AND BURGLARS. - - -After a time, business called me in the direction in which the “tide of -empire rolls,” and we took a long, but by no means tedious or monotonous -journey, along that metal ribbon which, stretching from ocean to ocean, -unites the Atlantic to the Pacific. The train was well supplied with -saloon cars, balcony cars, restaurants, smoking cars, palace cars, and -sleeping cars. We encountered none of the adventures so graphically -described by the writer of the veracious history of Phineas Fogg; no -herd of ten thousand buffaloes delayed, no daring band of Sioux -attacked, our train; we had neither duel nor flying leap over bridges, -crashing down into abysmal depths. We ate, we drank, we slept, we -talked, we gazed; we 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 waters of the Pacific throbbing upon the shores and along the -piers of San Francisco. To the Palace Hotel we drove, and there we 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 taking a stroll through the magnificent hotel in -which we were now quartered. - -“If there was a railway running along all the passages and corridors we -might manage to get round the Palace Hotel in a morning,” I said, “but -steam has not yet been introduced for that purpose. To be sure, there is -the pneumatic tube, but that is not quite large enough unless you are -willing to go without a pannier.” - -“How large is the house?” asked Mrs. 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 the four passenger elevators, which are run by -hydraulic power. The 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 their tempting wares. I left her making -purchases 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 projecting over a cascade of hair, and desired that my -face might preserve its human outline, instead of presenting--as she -sarcastically remarked--no distinction from the physiognomy of a bearded -owl or a Barbary ape. - -No fear of losing 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 -backward, and have his nose made a handle of. To be shaved, however, is -the fashion of American respectability, and it is astonishing how -gravely men look at each other when 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 the necessary education and skill, and show the diligence -of an expert in that line, otherwise he will be liable for damages -sustained.[256] 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 professional, he is expected to use -the skill usually possessed by a master of the art.[257] In Illinois, it -would seem that if one renders his services free, gratis, and for -nothing, he will be only liable for gross negligence;[258] but the point -appears open to argument.[259] I presume that no one would be so foolish -as to suppose that a professor of the tonsorial art is bound to attend -to your hirsute appendages willy-nilly; but when he does take you in -hand he must carry the operation through without any sins of omission or -commission.[260] - -When I rejoined my wife, she asked to descend into the basement regions, -so down we 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?” inquired Mrs. L. of the individual -whose duty it was 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 careful.” - -“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, in 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 he was arranging his neck-tie, or parting his back -hair.” - -On we went, to the pantries, and saw the thousands 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 remarked. - -“It would matter more to the man who broke the article than to the hotel -proprietor, I calculate,” 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 the things that he uses, in the -same position as if he hired them--in fact he does hire them; and it is -well settled that every hirer of a chattel is bound to use the thing let -to him in a proper and reasonable manner, to take the same care of it -that a prudent and cautious man ordinarily takes of his own property, -and to return it to the owner at the proper time, in as good condition -as it was in when he got it, subject only to deterioration produced by -ordinary 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.[261] 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.[262] 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 levissima_, or that -apocryphal phrase of infinitesimal negligence which stands in antithesis -to the _diligentia diligentissima_ which the law does not, as a -continuous service, exact.”[263] - -As I paused, the man hastily remarked that he had no time to stop and -talk, and my wife, fearing that the subterranean air was affecting my -brain, said that we had better go up stairs; so, like the youth with the -strange device, “Excelsior” was our motto. - -“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 purpose 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,”[264] I returned. - -“What a terrible place for a fire!” suggested my wife. - -“Yes,” I replied. “No fire would have the slightest chance here. What -with the huge reservoir supplied by artesian wells, the seven tanks on -the roof, the three large steam fire-pumps, 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 of the continent, in -the State of Vermont, where a man sued to recover the value of a span of -horses, a set of double harness, two horse-blankets, and two halters, it -was decided by the court that an hotel-keeper is not liable for property -lost by fire where the conflagration is occasioned by unavoidable -casualty or superior force, without any negligence on his part or that -of his servants.[265] An English decision tends in the same -direction;[266] and in Michigan it was held that he was not liable for -the horses and wagons of a guest, burned in a barn, without his -negligence.[267] But the English decision has been questioned both here -and there,[268] 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.[269] 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 damage is the work of an incendiary, and -occurred without negligence on their part; but the burden of proving -this is, of course, upon the innkeeper,[270] 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, or an -earthquake) or the owner has been negligent.”[271] - - * * * * * - -“Heigh-ho!” sighed my wife, as, exhausted with her long tramp through -the mammoth house, she sank into a luxurious arm-chair on our return to -our own apartment, preparatory to an excursion through the city. “Look -at that horrid little thing!” she exclaimed the next instant, and -starting up with enough vehemence to frighten a lion, she scared away a -little mouse that had been nibbling at her reticule. “The little wretch! -see how it has spoilt 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 me that question who could afford -to pay me for a carefully considered opinion,” I replied. - -“Why can’t you tell me?” - -“Because I scarcely know what to say. The point seems open to argument. -I don’t remember any case where the depredations of mice have occupied -the attention of a court of law, although there have been several -decisions on the subject of rats.” - -“Well, and what were they?” exclaimed my wife, impatiently. “That a man -can keep the nasty things in his house, and let them damage the property -of his guests, and not pay for them?” - -“In one case where rats gnawed a hole in the bottom of a boat, and the -water, coming in at the leak, damaged goods on board, the owner of the -vessel was held liable for the performance of those rodents;[272] and in -another case, carriers were held responsible for their depredations on -board a ship, although there were cats and mangooses on board, and the -owners had availed themselves of the valuable services of the venerable -sire of the pretty rat-catcher’s daughter of Paddington Green.”[273] - -“But you stupid man, we are not on board ship,” said my amiable and -accomplished spouse. - -“And,” I replied, “that is exactly where the difficulty arises; for -where a man had a water-tank on the roof of his house, and the rats -gnawed through a leaden pipe so that water trickled down and injured the -goods of another fellow on the ground floor, the court held that the -owner of the establishment, who occupied the upper flat, was not -responsible--and Chief Baron Kelly remarked that it was absurd to -suppose that a duty lay on the landlord to exclude the possibility of -the entrance of rats from without.”[274] - -“That seems a very different view from that taken by the judges in the -other cases,” remarked Mrs. L. - -“Yes; but the Chief Baron said that the case of a ship was wholly -different--that it might be possible to insure freedom from rats in a -ship, but that it was impossible to say that this could be done with -respect to warehouses generally,[275] and another judge remarked that a -landlord could not be considered negligent if he omitted taking means to -get rid of these pests till there was reason to suppose they were in the -building.”[276] - -“Never mind what others considered and thought 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 possession he becomes liable for the mischief it -commits.”[277] - -“Do you know what I think?” queried my wife. - -“No, my dear.” - -“That we had better go to lunch.” - - * * * * * - -As we were quietly sleeping the sleep of the wearied 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 he had heard the click of a pistol. I made the window secure, and -again entered dream-land. In the morning, as we donned the attire which -Adam’s transgression has rendered necessary, my wife 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 burglarious entry was under circumstances that -absolved him from all blame, he would not be liable.[278] But that -doctrine is not now followed.”[279] - -“And what do the judges now say?” - -“It was decided in this sunset State that although the point may be -somewhat unsettled, yet still the true idea is to hold that innkeepers, -like common carriers, are insurers of the property committed to their -charge, and are bound to make restitution for any injury or loss not -caused by the act of the Almighty, nor by a common enemy, nor by the -neglect or default of the owner.”[280] - -A fresh topic of conversation here suggesting itself to the active brain -of Mrs. L., she launched out upon it _con amore_. - -I found afterwards that I had not been the only object of the burglar’s -attentions, for as I was sauntering along 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 put 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 conversed -on legal topics, and from whom carelessness and negligence were as -inseparable as Apollo and his golden bow, or Orpheus and his tuneful -lyre. - -“The same old Story, to whom I have often alluded in my professional -talks with you, says[281] that negligence may be ordinary, or less than -ordinary, or more than ordinary; and that ordinary negligence may be -defined to be want of ordinary diligence, and gross negligence to be -want of slight diligence. Although some English judges have said that -they can see no difference between negligence and gross negligence; that -it is the same thing with the addition of a vituperative epithet.[282] -Of what kind of negligence have you been guilty, and what has happened?” - -“I did not say that I had been doing anything. But suppose that a fellow -had some money in his portmanteau and left it in the hall 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 be warranted -in finding that the individual referred to had been guilty of gross -negligence, and that the hotel-keeper was exonerated through his -imprudence in thus exposing his goods to peril.”[283] - -“I had some such idea floating through my own cranium.” - -“’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 hotel, placed his box in the commercial room, as was the -wont of those who visited the house. The box had money in it, and was -left there for three nights. Twice or thrice, in the presence of several -on-lookers, Armistead opened the trunk and counted his change. The lock -was so bad that any one could unfasten it without a key by simply -pushing back the bolt. The money leaked away mysteriously, and Armistead -sued the landlord to recover it, but the judge who tried the case told -the jury that gross negligence on the part of the guest would relieve -the host from his common-law liability; and when the matter came up -before the court it was held that the jury had done right in finding the -traveler had been guilty of such gross negligence as to excuse his -landlord from liability for the money. Lord Campbell remarked that the -judge would have been astray had he said 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 negligentia_ on the part of -the guest.”[284] - -“That’s the law, is it?” - -“A still more recent case settled the question as to the amount of -negligence that would bind the owner of the goods. In deciding it, -Earle, J., said that he thought that the rule of law resulting 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 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 -ordinary care that a prudent man might reasonably have been expected to -take under the circumstances;[285] and the same rule seems to hold good -on this side of the Atlantic.”[286] - -“If a friend bags your baggage,” inquired the searcher after cheap -knowledge, “at an hotel, and marches off with it, could you compel the -proprietor of the establishment to make good your loss?” - -“It was decided not, in Illinois, where one had allowed his chum to -exercise acts of ownership over his trunk;[287] and long ago it was -held, in the old land, that if a landlord tells a guest, on his arrival, -that he 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 apartment 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.[288] But an innkeeper can’t shirk his liability because -his house is full of parcels, if the owner is stopping at the -house.”[289] - -“To tell you, then, what really did happen to me: I got in here late -last night, and after entering my name at the office, pulled out my -purse and paid the cabby; I then went to my room, and being very tired, -tumbled out of my clothes as rapidly as nature and art would permit me, -put them on a chair near the bed, and was soon among the flowery meads -of dream-land. This morning, lo and behold! the purse which I had left -in my pocket was gone, some 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, and trifled with the affections of subject, prince, -king, czar, and Cæsar, the whole Court of Queen’s Bench decided that an -innkeeper was bound by law to keep the goods and chattels of his guests, -without any stealing or purloining, and that it was no excuse 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);[290] -for that he, the landlord, is responsible for their safety, even in the -bed-room, and that even though the poor publican never knew that his -visitor had any property with him, and was entirely ignorant of the -depredation. Unless, indeed, the thief was the guest’s servant or -friend, or the proprietor had required the guest to place his goods in a -particular chamber, under lock and key, saying that then he would -warrant their safety, otherwise not, and the man had foolishly neglected -the advice.”[291] - -“Ah, well! then I am all right.” - -“Kindly refrain from forming a definite opinion until you are in full -possession of the whole law on the subject. I know that it has been held -again and again, in England, that a guest is not bound to either fasten -or lock his door.[292] In a very late case Lord Chancellor Cairns -remarked that he would be sorry to say any single word implying that -there is any rule of law as to this;[293] and our own authorities seem -to be in unison with the English decisions.[294] But perhaps you may -have heard the remark that circumstances alter cases.” - -“I must confess the maxim has a ring not altogether 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.[295] 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 absolved Clements from his -liability, and that he must hear his loss as philosophically as -possible.”[296] - -“Did the occupants of the bench state the why and the wherefore?” - -“Yes; and it was partly on the ground that the hotel-keeper was not -bound to extend the same protection to goods placed in a room for the -purposes of trade as to those in an ordinary chamber. (You know the -liability is only as to baggage; it extends not to merchandise.)[297] -And further, that circumstances of suspicion had arisen which should -have put the guest on his guard; that after the 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 protection which the law casts -around him, yet, if circumstances of suspicion arise, he must exercise -at least ordinary care.”[298] - -“But,” said my companion, “I had no head to warn me--not even -Banquo-like did any ‘horrible shadow, unreal mockery’ appear, to place -me on my guard.” - -“A case occurred at Bristol, in England, which may, perchance, put the -matter to you in a clear light. A man of foreign extraction, Oppenheim -by name, went to the White Lion Hotel. While in a public room he took -from his pocket a canvas bag, containing twenty-two gold sovereigns, -some silver, and a £5 note, and extracted therefrom a tanner--” - -“A what?” - -“A six-penny bit--to pay for some stamps. Shortly afterwards he 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 which a prudent man might -reasonably be expected to have used under the circumstances.” - -“And the jury said what?” - -“Why, they said the hotel company were not liable; and the Court of -Common Pleas, at Westminister, said that the judge had put the law -correctly, and that the jury had done their duty.” - -“But then the guest had been guilty of other acts of negligence besides -leaving his door unlocked; he showed his purse--” - -“_Et tu Brute!_” 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 negligence on Oppenheim’s part which contributed -to the loss. One of my Lords said that he agreed in the opinion 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 small 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.[299] And one of -the other judges remarked that Lord Coke, in the case to which I first -referred,[300] 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.”[301] - -“Well, what am I 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 public 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.” - -“Only $2; but it is the principle 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.” - - - - -CHAPTER VII. - -HORSES AND STABLES. - - -Time passed, and back to the East we had come. On a certain day my wife -and myself, together with a couple of friends, yclept Mr. and Mrs. De -Gex, engaged a carriage and pair to take us some twenty or thirty miles -into the country to see some wonderful sights--what they were is quite -immaterial at this late date. A pleasant drive and charming day we 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 pervaded one’s inner man. - -“Ah,” said Mrs. De Gex, who was inclined towards sentimentalism, “how -true are the words of the poet! - - ‘Whoe’er has traveled life’s dull round, - Where’er his stages may have been, - May sigh to think that he has found - His warmest welcome at an inn.’” - -The innkeeper told our driver to leave the carriage 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 he had room for the horse, and a servant of the -establishment put it into the stable, while the traveler took his coat -and whip into the house, where he got some refreshment. The hostler -placed the gig in the open street, (outside the inn-yard) where he was -accustomed to leave the carriages of guests. The gig having been stolen, -the publican was held liable.”[302] - -“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 did 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. He did not do so, and had to bear the penalty.[303] And -it has been held in this country that an innkeeper would be responsible -in the same way where a guest’s servant had placed his master’s property -in an open, uninclosed space, by the direction of the hostler, and upon -being assured that it would be quite safe there.”[304] - -“Mr. Justice Story once said that 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 open and unlocked; and that if, -under those circumstances, a horse or a chaise should be stolen, it -would deserve consideration how far the innkeeper would be liable,”[305] -said Mr. De Gex, my companion, who had looked inside a 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 protect the property of -those whom he receives as his guests. In one instance, the driver put -his loaded sleigh in the wagon-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.[306] But Dr. Theophilus 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 his 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 particular -instructions, it may be presumed that he consented and took the risk -upon himself.”[307] - -“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 -spirit, not accustomed to the place, might kick through it and break its -leg.” - -“Well,” I said, “the innkeeper is bound to provide safe stabling for the -horses of his guest, and if any evil betide the animals from being -improperly tied, or the stalls being in bad repair, full compensation -may be recovered.[308] He is responsible from the moment he receives the -quadrupeds until they leave; even after the owner has paid his bill and -his man is harnessing them to go;[309] and, as a rule, the statutory -laws limiting the liability of hotel-keepers do not apply to horses or -carriages.” - -“Your view is the one a lawyer (a man without a heart) 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,”[310] I remarked. - -“Still, one should himself exercise reasonable care and caution,” -returned De Gex. “I remember a gentleman, who kept his horse at an inn, -rode out one evening and on returning 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 head 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.”[311] - -“Yet I know that where a horse had been choked to death by its halter, -and it was proved that it was tied under the superintendence and -direction of the owner himself, and in reply the owner proved that the -stall in which it had been was in very bad condition, it was held that -the innkeeper could not give further evidence.[312] And when another -innkeeper agreed with the owner of a horse to entertain the man in -charge one day in every week, or oftener if he should chance to stop at -the inn with the horse, furnish the latter with provender and allow it -to be kept in a particular stall: no one but the man in charge took care -of the horse; yet on its being injured in its stall, the innkeeper was -held answerable.”[313] - -“And look, besides, there are no proper partitions between the stalls,” -said my friend, “and some other nag might kick one of ours; and you know -that it was decided in the old country that under such circumstances the -publican would not be liable for the injuries so inflicted, unless it -could be proved that he did not take due and proper care in excluding -vicious and kicking horses.”[314] - -“Hah!” I exclaimed. “But that case has since been doubted, and it can -scarcely be accepted as good law.[315] Well, what shall we do?” - -“Let’s tell them to turn the nags into the field,” said De Gex. - -“If you do, and they are lost, stolen or injured, we cannot look to our -host for recompense, unless Master Boniface himself be guilty of -negligence, as by putting them in a field where pits or ditches abound -or fences and gates are broken or open. If, however, he should put them -into the pasture of his own accord, he would be answerable;[316] for -then the field would be considered as part of the inn premises. Although -Story thinks that the latter rule should be qualified, as it is such a -common custom in America in the summer time to put horses in a pasture, -he says the implied consent of the guest may fairly be presumed, if he -knows the practice.”[317] - -“Well, let us send them over to the other house, where the stabling -appears better, while we ourselves lodge here,” again suggested Mr. De -G. - -“That might do,” I made answer; “for an innkeeper is bound to receive a -horse, even though the owner chooses to go elsewhere.[318] And it is -clearly settled that in the eyes of the law a man becomes a guest at a -place of public entertainment by having his horse there, though he -himself neither lodges nor takes refreshments there.”[319] - -“But I thought that an innkeeper was not bound to take the goods of a -man who merely wishes to use the house as a place of deposit;[320] nor -liable for things so left there, except as an ordinary bailee.”[321] - -“Oh, that rule only applies to dead things out of which the man can make -no profit; but with animals the innkeeper is chargeable, because he -makes something out of keeping them. And, as I said, it has been -frequently held that he is liable for the loss of a horse, although its -owner puts up at a different place. But there is some doubt.”[322] - -“Will he also be liable for the carriage?” asked my companion. - -“Yes, and for the harness as well; for the compensation 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 happens to our nags, -although they have been hired by us.[323] 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;[324] and for all such legal purposes the -hirer of goods will be deemed the owner’s servant.” - -“Suppose a horse-thief stops at an inn and there loses his prize, can -the owner then sue the landlord?” - -“No; he must, under those trying circumstances, look simply to the -person who first deprived him of his faithful nag,”[325] I replied. - -“The other innkeeper may charge pretty well for the horses, if we stay -here ourselves,” suggested De Gex. - -“In the good old days of yore he could not have done that, for -innkeepers were bound to ask only a reasonable price, to be calculated -according to the rates of the adjoining market, without getting anything -for litter;[326] and if they made a gross overcharge, the guests had -only to tender a reasonable sum, and have them indicted and fined for -extortion.[327] But I fear me those halcyon days have passed. Do you -know that if a man is beaten at an inn the proprietor is not answerable, -although if the man’s horse should be so treated, even if it were not -known who did it, the publican will be liable?”[328] - -“That is queer law. Why is it?” - -“Because in ages long since gone by an innkeeper’s liability was -confined to one’s _bona et catalla_, and injury to a man is not damage -to his _bona et catalla_.” - -“Well, I am sure I don’t see what would damage his ‘bones and -cartilage,’ if a good beating did not. Let us join the ladies.” - -“I think we had better, after that atrocious attempt at a pun,” I -replied. “Well said the Autocrat 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 -how serious.’” - -We found our better halves had gone out for a walk. Knowing that their -feminine curiosity would soon bring them to a standstill we started in -pursuit, and speedily came up with them as they stood gazing at some -rose bushes in a pretty flower garden. - -“Did you ever see such bea-u-ti-ful roses?” screamed Mrs. De Gex, whose -voice, when pitched in a high key, was as melodious as a peacock’s. - -“And so many!” added Mrs. Lawyer. - -“I am somewhat a believer in the doctrine of metempsychosis,” said Mr. -De Gex. - -“What has such a horrid thing to do with roses?” asked his wife. - -“Merely that, if it be true, I may have seen finer and more numerous -flowers long, long ago.” - -“Explain,” I exclaimed. - -“Well, when in another form I may, at the beginning of the Christian -era, have been present at the regatta near lovely Baiæ and seen the -whole surface of the Lucrine Sea strewn with these flowers, according to -custom; or I may have been present at some of old Nero’s banquetings, -when he caused showers of rose-leaves to be rained down upon the -assembled guests; or, in fact, I may have been at Heliogabalus’ dinner -party, when such heaps of these same flowers were flung over the -revelers that several were smothered to death. That frail beauty, -Cleopatra, was wont to spend immense sums on roses, and at one -entertainment, that she gave in honor of her friend Anthony, she had the -whole floor covered more than a yard deep.” - -“How delightful!” 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 couch -made of the blossoms. Verres, with whom Cicero had the tussle, was -accustomed to travel through his province reclining gracefully on a -mattrass full of them; 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 he wanted to be uncommonly luxurious, -would sleep in a tent of gold and silver upon a bed of these flowers.” - -“Did they indulge in attar?” - -“I cannot say, but at his parties, Nero--that champion fiddler of -Rome--would have his fountains flinging up rose-water; and while the -jets were pouring out the 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. Heliogabalus was so fond of this wine that he used to bathe -in it.” - -“What a waste!” said my wife. - -“Whose? That girl’s?” 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 have been killed -two or three times during 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 rose.” - -“He is, perhaps, not quite so bad as the lady who had such a strong -antipathy to this queen of flowers that she actually fainted when her -lover approached her wearing an artificial one in his button-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 placed upon it as -she slept. He is most like Tostig of old,” continued my wife. - - “He cannot smell a rose but pricks his nose - 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 -interesting discussion going on between the landlord and a man of a -class somewhat too common in these hard times, an impecunious 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 disciple 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.[329] If a man brought several horses to your old inn, -each one could be detained only for its own keep, and not for that of -the others; and if you let the owner take away all but one, you could -not keep that one until your whole bill was paid, but you would have to -give it up on tender of the amount due for its keep.[330] Hullo!” he -added, as he saw me, “here’s a gentleman who knows all about such -things. “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, perhaps, Mr. Story may be said to doubt his -last statement.”[331] - -“But,” said Boniface, a short, fat man, made 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 paid or till it dies, which latter event will probably -happen first to such a bag of bones.” - -“You can’t do that, old boy,” said Mr. B., delightedly. - -“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, _animo -revertendi_,[332] it amounts to giving him credit and a relinquishment -of your right of lien, so that you can’t afterwards 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 latter debt, you could -not for the former.”[333] - -“But have I no lien upon the horse of a guest? Besides, I did not let -him take it away. He went off with it at daybreak, before any one was -up, the villain,” said mine host, waxing more and more wrathy as the -thought of past grievances recurred to him. - -“He, he, 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.”[334] - -“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 keep.[335] And if you kept that old nag you would have -a perfect right to continue to charge for the food supplied from day to -day, while it remained in your possession, and that although Mr. B. -distinctly told you that he would not be responsible for anything -supplied to his horse; because otherwise your security would soon be -reduced to the value of an old hide and bones.[336] But then _cui -bono_?” - -“What’s that?” asked the astonished innkeeper. - -“I mean, what would you gain by the additional outlay of good fodder?” I -explained. - -“Why, I would make the old thing work!” replied the man. - -“No, indeed!” said Blackstone. “You would have no right to ride on my -horse, or use him for your own benefit in any way.”[337] - -“You would have no more right to use it for your own pleasure and -benefit than a man who distrains a cow for rent has to enjoy the fruits -of her ruminations. You could only ride the horse for the purpose of -preserving its health by proper exercise,”[338] I remarked. - -“I am dashed if I’d do that,” cried the publican, waxing fierce. - -“You would have to do it,”[339] shrieked Blackstone, triumphantly. - -“Well,” then roared the master of the establishment, “I’d sell the -blamed thing quick enough.” - -“If you did you would get yourself into hot water, and have 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.[340] Ho! ho! -ho!” laughed the little rascal. - -The poor landlord looked at me with such a despairing glance--a look of -a dying duck in a thunder-storm--that I could scarce restrain my risible -faculties as I remarked: - -“I am afraid your adversary is correct, and not even if a horse were to -eat its head off could you sell it, unless you chanced to live in London -or Exeter. Your only remedy would be to sue for the price of the food, -get judgment, and then sell.[341] 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.”[342] - -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 fist in my -face, sir. It is not the first time I’ve done the old chap,” added my -unworthy confrere, turning to us with a look of importance; “and it will -not be the last, unless I’ve read law for naught.” - -“How did you take him in before?” I queried. - -“Well, some years ago I was hard up--not the first, 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 ponies, bring them -here, and throw out some hints that it would be all right 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 advertised -for horses lost, stolen, or strayed, and after some three weeks happened -here and quite accidentally, you know, found my span. Of course mine -host wanted pretty good pay, but I talked to him like a father; told -him that I knew that if a traveler brings to an inn the horse of a third -person, the innkeeper has a perfect right to detain it for its keep; -that of course he was not bound to inquire whose horse it was;[343] that -that highly estimable and worthy occupant of the bench in days that are -no more, I mean Judge Coleridge, said that with reference to an -innkeeper’s lien there was no difference between the goods of a guest -and those of a third person brought by a guest.[344] This pleased the -old rascal. Then I pleaded poverty, but Shylock was unmoved; then I -assumed an appearance of anger at his keeping my horses and went away.” - -“But how did that help you?” I asked impatiently, 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 five minutes 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 horses, that he had 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 129;[345] and the fellow at once caved in. -Ta-ta, Mr. Lawyer.” - -And so off went the man to practice his knaveries and trickeries on some -other unfortunate members of the _genus homo_. The only consolation of a -virtuous man is that - - “Doubtless the pleasure is as great - Of being cheated as to cheat.” - -“Well,” said my friend, who had all this time been standing by, a silent -but not an unbenefited listener, “Well, it strikes me that the law -concerning innkeepers and horses needs what Lord Dundreary 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.[346] And where a man stopped with his horse at an inn -under suspicious circumstances, and the police ordered the innkeeper to -retain the animal, it was held that the poor landlord had no lien.[347] -And if a neighbor leaves his nag 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 publican has no lien for the animal’s -keep;[348] nor would he have, where he boards the horses of a stage -line, under a special agreement.”[349] - -“What about a livery-stable keeper?” asked De Gex. - -“Down in Georgia, it was held that he had a right of lien on horses and -buggies left in his keeping;[350] but everywhere else, it is considered -that he has no such lien, for the contract with him is that the owner is -to have the horse whenever required;[351] and the claim of a lien would -be inconsistent with the necessary enjoyment of the property.”[352] - -“Suppose the livery man pays out money to a vet. for advice?” - -“That would make no difference.[353] But if a man who is both an -innkeeper and a livery-stable keeper receives a horse, and does not say -he takes it in the latter capacity, he has all the responsibilities of -an innkeeper, as well as all his privileges.[354] On the other hand, if -an innkeeper receives horses and carriages on livery, the fact that the -owner on a subsequent day takes refreshment at the inn will not give the -innkeeper an innkeeper’s rights.[355] I was almost forgetting to say -that even a livery-stable keeper may have a lien by express -agreement;[356] and if he exercises any labor or trouble in the -improvement of the animals, he will have a lien for his charges.[357] - -“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 be off.” - - - - -CHAPTER VIII. - -WHAT IS A LIEN? - - -As we turned to leave the premises to hasten back to our respective -wives, leaving our Jehu to bring the carriage and horses, we were -accosted by a most dilapidated specimen of the genus “seedy,” who -appeared to be a kind of stable-boy or hostler not overstocked with -brains. Judging from a cursory glance, his pants had parted in -irreconcilable anger from his boots, and had cautiously shrunk well up -to the knees--as if apprehensive of a kick from the big toe which was -well enough to be outside the remains of the boots; here and there -patches of bare skin peeped out through his tattered set-upons, as if -pleased to see daylight and have a little fresh air. Yet of such varied -hues were they, that the most profound ethnologist would be perplexed to -decide whether the man should be classed among the Caucasian, Mongolian, -Malay, Indian, or Negro race, or whether he was a hybrid compound of all -five. His coat, in colors, would have rivaled Joseph’s, and made the -teeth of his naughty brethren water with tenfold jealousy. His hat might -have for generations been used in winter to exclude the rains and snows -from a broken window, in summer 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 his long yellow hair; his -breath as alcoholic as the store-room of a distillery; his _tout -ensemble_ anything but suggestive of the “is he not a man and a brother” -sentiment. - -In piteous tones this wreck of what, perchance, was once a mother’s -darling, a father’s pride, asked: - -“Be you a liyur, sur?” - -“Yes. What do you want?” I returned. - -“Well, sur, I’m a poor man, with not a cint to bliss myself wid; and I -come here one day and got a bite of vittals, and bedad, sur, the ould -landlord seized me for rint, and said, says he, that he had a lane upon -me for those same scraps of cold food; and says he, I must stay here and -work for him until I can pay up. Now, kin he do that same, yur honor?” - -“No, most certainly not. He has no right to keep you or any other man -for such a reason.[358] 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,”[359] 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 innkeeper had the right to -detain the persons of his guests for the payment of their bills?” -queried De Gex. - -“Yes, old Bacon so lays it down,[360] and so did one Judge Eyres,[361] -long since gone to his account; and in some of the old text-books the -same view is taken. But the idea was exploded forty years ago by the -combined effort of Lord Abinger, C. B., and his _puisnés_, Barons Parke, -Bolland, and Gurney.” - -“On what occasion?” - -“A man of the name of Sunbolf sued an innkeeper for assaulting and -beating him, shaking and pulling him about, stripping and pulling off -his coat, carrying it away and converting it to his own use.” - -“That was rather rough of him.” - -“It was, but the innkeeper, Alford, replied that he 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 persons in company with him came into the -inn as guests; and that he then found and provided them, at their -request, with divers quantities of tea and other victuals; and that -Sunbolf and the other persons thereupon, and just before the committing -of the grievances, became and were indebted to him in a certain small -sum of money, to wit, eleven shillings and three pence, for the said tea -and victuals; and thereupon he, the innkeeper, just before he did the -things of which he was accused, required and demanded of Sunbolf and the -others, payment by them, or some or one of them, of the said sum, or -some security or pledge for the payment thereof; but Sunbolf and the -others wholly refused then, or at any other time, to pay to him the said -sum, or leave with or give to him any security or pledge for the payment -of the same; and before he did the acts spoken of, Sunbolf persisted in -leaving, and would have departed and left the said inn, against the -innkeeper’s will and consent, without paying 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 go and depart from the said inn without paying, and -refused to pay that sum to him, and because the sum 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 that sum, and he (that is, Alford) could not procure or -obtain from them, or any or either of them, any other pledge or security -than the said coat mentioned, he, (the said Alford) at the time -mentioned, did gently lay his hands on Sunbolf to prevent him going and -departing from the said inn without his or the other persons paying the -said eleven shillings and three pence, or giving him some pledge or -security for the payment of it; and he did then, for the purpose of -acquiring such security or pledge, to a gentle and necessary degree, lay -his hands upon Sunbolf, and strip and pull the said coat from and off of -him, the same being a reasonable pledge or security in that behalf, and -then placed the same in the said inn wherein he had thence thitherto -kept and detained the same as such pledge and security, for the said -debt of eleven shillings and three pence, being wholly due and unpaid to -him; and, therefore, he (Alford) suffered and permitted Sunbolf and the -others to go and depart from the said inn; and on the occasion aforesaid -he necessarily and unavoidably, to a small degree, shook and pulled -about Sunbolf; and these were the 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 longwinded pleadings in vogue -in the year of grace 1838.” - -“Was A.’s explanation satisfactory to the court?” - -“Oh, dear, no! Parke, B., asked, during the argument, if an innkeeper -had a right 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 afterwards, in -giving judgment, he clearly and distinctly answered his own queries, and -said that an innkeeper had no power to strip a guest of his clothes; for -if he had, then, if the innkeeper took the coat off his back, and that -proved an insufficient pledge, he might go on and strip him naked, and -that would apply either to a male or female----” - -“That would be shocking!” - -“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 he had always understood the law to be that the clothes on the -person of a man, and in his possession at the time, are not to be -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 them to pay a trifling debt -which, after all, was not due, and which the innkeeper had no pretence -for demanding.” - -“But, my dear fellow, we were speaking of the right of a landlord to -keep the body of his guest.” - -“To be sure we were. The Chief Baron said that if an innkeeper had a -right to detain a guest for the non-payment of his bill, he had a right -to detain him until the bill was paid, which might be for years or might -be 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 said -was monstrous, and, according to my lord Baron Parke, was -startling.”[362] - -“For my part, I think it is high time we rejoined the ladies,” said De -Gex, with the air of a man satisfied 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 the preceding day, except -that we might well have exclaimed, in the words of the poet: - - “How the dashed dry dust, - Nebulous nothing, - Nettled our nasal - Nostrils, you noodles!” - -_En route_, we stopped at a little wayside inn for luncheon. On the -table the _pièce de resistance_ was beefsteak. - -“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 was sadly clouded, he was -breakfasting at Kew, and the conversation turned on the great scarcity -of beef in England. ‘Why don’t the people plant 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 them. Next morning he visited -the spot to see if the beef had sprouted, and finding some snails -crawling about, he took them for small oxen, and joyfully exclaimed to -his wife: ‘Here they are; here they are, Charlotte--horns and all!’” - -“Poor fellow--poor fellow!” - -By and by, apple dumplings appeared. “Ha!” I exclaimed, “here are more -reminders of the poor old king! How his Britannic majesty used to puzzle -over the problem of how the apples got inside the pastry.” - -“The Chinese cooks would have bewildered him still more with some of -their ingenious performances,” remarked De Gex. - -“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, -_mirabile dictu_----” - -“What?” asked my wife. - -“Excuse me, I should not have quoted Latin. They 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 be solved, he found himself in a worse -quandary over the 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 confectionery.” - -“Wonderful men those Celestials!” I exclaimed. “They must have got such -notions from the banqueting table of Jove himself.” - -“I thought they indulged in nothing nicer than cats or dogs, rats or -mice, with an occasional dash of bird’s-nest soup,” said Mrs. De Gex. - -“Altogether a mistaken notion,” returned her husband. - -Tea was the beverage. I nearly upset the table as I reached over for the -teapot, whereupon my comrade exclaimed in the words of Cibber’s -rhapsody: - -“Tea, thou soft, thou sober, sage and venerable liquid; thou female -tongue-running, smile-smoothing, heart-opening, wink-tipping cordial, to -whose glorious insipidity we owe the happiest 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: “Referring again to the -innkeeper’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 playing upon -one string.” - -“Perhaps not, but as rare old Ben Jonson remarked, ‘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 inform me why publicans -have a lien at all,” said my friend. - -“Well, you know that a lien is the right of a man to whom any chattel is -given to detain it until some pecuniary demand upon or in respect of it -has been satisfied by the owner, and as the law treats an innkeeper as a -public 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, pecuniary, or hygienic grounds, and bestow on -the preservation of their goods an extraordinary amount of care--so, to -compensate him for this obligation, the law gives him the power of -detaining his guest’s goods, (except such as are in the visitor’s actual -possession and custody, in his hand for example,) until he pays for the -entertainment afforded, including, 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 placed by him -apart from the personal goods of his visitor.”[363] - -“Then, I suppose an innkeeper 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,[364] or under any special agreement,[365] or an arrangement to -pay at a future time,[366] he has no lien upon the goods, for he has no -responsibility 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 right of lien.”[367] - -“Suppose things are brought which the innkeeper is not bound to -receive--what then?” - -“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.[368] But if anything is left with him, merely to take -care of, by one who does not himself put up at the house, the poor -innkeeper has no right to keep them until paid for his trouble;[369] -unless, indeed, it is a horse, or other animal, out of the keep of which -he can receive a benefit.[370] 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;[371] and if the guest turns out a -thief, still the true owner cannot get back his property without paying -the charges upon it.[372] In Georgia, however, it has been held that the -innkeeper has no lien against the true owner, except for the charges -upon the specific article on which the lien is claimed.”[373] - -“But supposing he really knows that the guest is not the owner?” said my -companion. - -“Then he has no lien. Broadwood, the celebrated piano manufacturer, -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 knew it belonged to such party, and as -Hababier had not brought it to the place as his own, either upon his -coming to or while staying at the inn, the proprietor had no lien upon -it.[374] But of course, if a servant, or an agent, in the course of his -employment, come to an inn and runs up a bill, the proprietor has a lien -upon his master’s goods in the servant’s custody.”[375] - -“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.[376] If, however, the unsophisticated landlord is beguiled into -letting them go by a fraudulent representation, his right remains;[377] -and if they are taken away, he may follow them if he does not -loiter.[378] Delays are always dangerous, except in cases of matrimony. -Of course, a tender of the money claimed extinguishes the lien;[379] 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.[380] Sometimes, if too much is claimed, or the claim is -on a wrong account, a tender may not be necessary.”[381] - -“Must the man say why he refuses to give up the goods?” - -“If he gives a reason for detaining them other than his right of lien, -he waives that, and it is gone; still, merely omitting to mention it -when the goods are demanded will not prevent him enforcing it.”[382] - -“Could not a guest get off by paying a small sum on account?” - -“No; for then a farthing in cash would destroy the right;[383] but -taking a note payable at a future day will put a stop to it.”[384] - -“I believe that the landlord cannot sell the goods seized,” suggested my -comrade. - -“No, except by consent or operation of law.”[385] - -“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 considerably 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, provided he was possessed of -reason, and not an infant.”[386] - -“Oh, then, a juvenile’s goods and chattels cannot be kept for his little -hotel bill? Another privilege gone forever with the happy 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 furnished in good faith, without the knowledge -that the youngster was acting improperly and contrary to the wishes of -his guardian; and it was even held that the innkeeper had a lien for -money given to the boy and expended by him for necessaries,”[387] I -remarked. - -“I trust,” said my companion, “that there is not very much 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, ingrate 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 which may -prove to be worth to you fully the cost of this drive of ours.” - -“Well, I will restrain myself and lend a listening ear.” - -“In the first place, if an innkeeper should retain your trunks for your -hotel bill, you need pay him nothing for his trouble in taking care of -them thereafter; when you are flush again, you may call, and on paying -the original amount due, demand your traps.[388] In that way, you see, -you may sometimes get rid of the trouble of carrying your baggage about -with you. Then, again, whenever possible, travel in company, with all -the baggage in one trunk; let the one who owns the trunk pay 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.”[389] - -“What are you two men gossiping about?” suddenly broke in Mrs. Lawyer, -she and her companion having fully exhausted their stock of chit-chat. - -“Gossiping!” said De Gex; “no indeed; as Sir Boyle Roche 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-pipes of those who diffuse it,’ and remarks that -it proves nothing but the bad taste of the smoker,” I added. - -The ladies seemed conscience-stricken, for neither replied, and for some -time we all sat in silence, enjoying the delicious coolness of eventide; -each was busied in private castle-building, or “watching out the light -of sunset, and the opening of that beadroll which some oriental poet -describes as God’s call to the little stars, who each answer, ‘Here am -I!’” - - - - -CHAPTER IX. - -DUTIES OF A BOARDING-HOUSE KEEPER. - - -Suns had risen and set; moons had waxed and waned, and Mrs. Lawyer and -myself were now settled in a boarding-house. I will not say comfortably, -for, although 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 Apostles. - -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 occupants, or the entertainment provided as a _quid -pro_ their dollars. Of the furniture, I will only say that the carpet on -the parlor floor “was bedizened like a Ricaree Indian--all red chalk, -yellow ochre, and cock’s feathers.” Of our fellow boarders, ’tis -sufficient to remark that some, on one or two occasions, had, perhaps, -worn kid gloves; most of the men were “self-made, whittled into shape -with their own jack-knives”; the ladies--but _de feminis nil nisi -bonum_. - -Of the food provided for the inner man, need more be said than that the -poultry, which appeared on the second day of our sojourn, 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 caught -by chaff. Every kind of finer tendon and ligament that it is in the -nature of poultry to possess, was developed in these specimens in the -singular form of guitar strings. Their limbs appeared to have struck -roots into their breasts and bodies, as aged trees strike roots into the -earth. Their legs were so hard 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 drumsticks without being of ostrich descent. - -_Ab uno disce omnes. Ex pede Herculem._ From these three hints let each -one, for himself, erect images of our boarding-house, our -fellow-boarders, and our meals, as a Cuvier would reconstruct a -megatherium from a tooth, or an Agassiz draw a picture of an unknown -fish from a single scale. But I must not dip my pen in vinegar, nor tip -it with wormwood, when I write of boarding-houses and their industrious -and unfortunate keepers. These providers of food and lodging seem to be -the descendants of Ishmael, their hand being against every one to eke -out their little profits, 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, that worthy patronized a cheap hotel, -not a boarding-house. - - * * * * * - -It has ever been a hobby of mine that a door--hall or otherwise--is -intended to be shut (if not, a hole in the wall would answer every -purpose and be cheaper). Well, one great source of trouble with me at -Madame Dee’s private boarding-house was that the domestic-of-all-work -was in the constant habit of leaving the hall door ajar whenever she -made her exit on to the street in her hunt for butter, eggs, or milk. A -fellow-boarder, seeing my anxiety on this point, asked me if I was -afraid of some one stealing Mrs. Lawyer. - -“No,” I replied, “I am more afraid of my overcoat. Although not very -new, it is still serviceable.” - -“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 -B C of professional knowledge. The 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 proceed and explain the -difference, so I spake somewhat as follows: - -“Once upon a time Catherine Dansey went to the boarding-house of -Elizabeth F. Richardson with her luggage, and was duly received within -the mansion. One day some of Mrs. Dansey’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. Richardson knew that her -Biddy was in the constant habit of neglecting to shut the door. Mrs. R. -would not settle the affair amicably, so Mrs. D. had the law of -her.[390] 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 having struck his lordship that perhaps -his twelve enlightened countrymen, who sat before him in the box, did -not know too well what due care might be, he proceeded to explain to -them that it was such care as a prudent housekeeper would take in the -management of his own house for the protection of his own goods. The -judge went on to say that Mrs. Richardson’s servant leaving the door -open might be a want of such care, but the mistress was not answerable -for such negligence, unless she herself 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 embryo Coke. - -“She was rather stubborn about it, and applied for a new trial.” - -“Did she get it?” asked Coke _in futuro_. - -“No. The whole 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 implies an -undertaking on his part to take due and proper care of the boarder’s -belongings, although nothing was said about it; and that neglecting to -take due care of an outer door might be a breach of such duty.” - -“But did they say what due and proper care amounted to?” was queried. - -“Yes; but, as doctors often do, they disagreed on the point. Judge -Wightman could 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 he as a prudent man would take of his own. If he were guilty -of negligence in the selection of his servants, or in keeping such as he -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 neglect. Erle, J., said that as -there was no delivery of the goods by Mrs. D. to Mrs. R., no contract to -keep them with care and deliver them again, and nothing paid in respect -of the goods, there was no duty of keeping them placed upon Richardson. -Judge Coleridge and Lord Campbell looked at the case through spectacles -of another color--the former said that a guest at such a house is -entitled 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 -servants, and having nothing to do with the master’s judiciousness or -care or good fortune in selecting them; and the master undertakes to -the guest not merely to be careful in the choice of his servants, but -absolutely to take due and reasonable care of his goods. Lord Campbell -said that he could not go so far as to say that in no case can a -boarding-house keeper be liable for the loss of goods through the -negligence of a servant, although he himself was guiltless of any -negligence in hiring or keeping 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 are acting within the scope of their -employment, and he is answerable for their negligence. He is not -answerable for the consequences of a felony, or even a willful trespass -committed by them; but the general rule is, that the master is -responsible for the negligence of his servants while engaged in offices -which he employs them to do--and his lordship (for I have been quoting -his sentiments) said that he was not aware how the keeper of a -boarding-house could be an exception to the general rule.” - -I stopped here, and was rather chagrined to catch one of those present -saying to another-- - -“Do you remember what old Coates said about his wife?” - -“No--what?” - -“‘M-Mrs. C-Coates is a f-funny old watch. She b-broke her chain a g-good -while ago, and has been r-running down ever since; she must have a -mainspring a mile long.’ This is apropos of our friend here when he gets -started on a legal point.” - -“And he is always starting some such shoppy subject; like Adelaide -Proctor’s young man-- - - ‘He cracks no egg without a legal sigh, - Nor eats of beef but thinking on the law,’” - -was the response wafted into the recesses of my auricular appendages--so -chilling it was that I incontinently 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 all the judges took the same view of the extent of -the liability.”[391] - -“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 -understand 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. He 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 -taking care of his guest’s goods; he saw great difficulties in so -holding, and thought it would be casting upon him an undefined -responsibility which would be most inconvenient; considering that -lodgers consist of all classes--from the highest 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 circumstances 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 specially in the custody of the keeper of the house.” - -“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 might be down in the kitchen cooking dinner or washing cups -and saucers; besides, she or he might refuse to take care of them,” -captiously remarked one of the company. - -“Notwithstanding all that, I have told you the 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 case you just referred to say anything about the -open door case?” questioned the earnest inquirer after knowledge. - -“Yes, and held that the whole tenor of the judgment in it was that a -boarding-house keeper is not bound to take such reasonable degree of -care of the goods of his guest as a prudent man may reasonably be -expected to take of his own.” - -“It seems strange,” urged the youth--by the way, a careless, heedless -young fellow was he--“that such people should in no way be liable to -look after the property of their boarders.” - -“I did not say exactly that. They are of course liable where a loss of a -lodger’s goods has resulted from gross negligence on their part, or they -themselves have been guilty of some misdeed.”[392] - -“Those two cases, I think,” said one who had been a silent listener -hitherto, “were both decided in England; but what say our American -judges on 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 -bewigged fellows across the ocean. The Supreme 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;[393] and the judge gave as his reason for making -the distinction that a passenger or wayfaring man may be an entire -stranger in the place, and must put up and lodge at the inn to which his -day’s journey may bring him, and so it is important that he should be -protected by the most stringent rules of law enforcing the liability of -hotel-keepers; but as a boarder does not need such protection the law -does not afford it, and it is sufficient to give him a remedy when he -proves the innkeeper guilty of culpable neglect. And in Kentucky, where -a regular boarder at an hotel deposited gold with the proprietor, who -put it in his safe, into which thieves broke and stole, the court held -that the hotel-keeper was not liable as an innkeeper, but only as a -depositary without reward, and as no gross negligence was shown the poor -boarder failed in his attempt to recover his lost cash in that way.[394] -I had better tell you, however, that in New York it has very recently -been held that a boarding-house keeper is liable for the loss of a -boarder’s property by theft, committed by a stranger allowed to enter -the boarder’s room by a servant of the house,[395] and that it is his -duty to exercise such care over a boarder’s goods as a prudent man would -over his own.” - -“Well, will you please tell me what is the difference 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 present I am sorry to say that duty calls me and I must -go.” - -Leaving my listeners to digest the law lecture I had delivered to them, -I repaired to the best parlor, and there found Mrs. Lawyer and another -lady in a state of white heat over the performances of a boarder who -occupied the next room--one of the genus referred to by Coleridge when -he said, - - “Swans sing before they die; ’twere no bad thing - Should certain persons die before they sing”-- - -who 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 that man not be made to keep quiet?” asked my wife. - -“Doubtless, my dear, if you would go and talk to him sweetly, 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 splitting headaches -through that horrid noise.” - -“I thought from your manner you seemed a little cracked, my love; what -can I do?” I queried. - -“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.”[396] - -“I am sure that the noise of bells is as heavenly music compared to the -infernal discords produced by that man,” remarked the other lady, 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 apparatus, and thought Eve would have shown a -better capacity for housekeeping if she had--the first time she used her -broom--swept Adam out of Paradise. - -“Yes, dear madam, the noise of belles is often most delightful; and the -happiest day of my life was the one on which I was engaged in ringing a -sweet village belle, who shall be nameless,” I replied, knowing that the -lady hated everything like gallantry, and I politely waved my hand -towards Mrs. L., who exclaimed: - -“You stupid, you! Tell me directly what we can do!” - -“In the English case I mentioned, the man got an injunction from the -Court of Chancery to restrain the noise; but in another case in North -Carolina,[397] 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 congregation laughed, and the other part got mad--the -irreligious and frivolous enjoyed it as fun, while the serious and -devout were indignant--although 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 poor 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 -fife in a procession was not a nuisance.[398] But then the wearers of -the ermine in that State seem almost indifferent to sounds of any kind; -for about the same time, they decided that profane swearing was not a -nuisance, unless it was loud and long continued.”[399] - -“What had we better do?” persisted Mrs. Lawyer. “Either he must leave, -or we must bid goodbye 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.”[400] - -“She will promise to do so, and that will be the end of it,” said the -acidulous lady. - -“In Massachusetts, where a lodger was disturbed by the lodger in the -room below singing hymns by no means of the Moody & Sankey style, and -the landlord promised to get the musician out, but failed to do so, the -Supreme Court held that the aggrieved boarder could not insist upon a -diminution of his weekly bills on account of the disagreeable -singing.[401] But, my dear, will you come and take a walk with me?” - -Off we started countrywards, and ---- walked. When we were returning, 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 grasshoppers -and the night-moths with folded wings among the flower-beds of the -cottages, and no on-lookers save the silent stars and jeweled-eyed frogs -upon the path staring at us” with all their might and main. So we -gossiped until we entered the city once again, and then the odors -changed; listeners and lookers-on became numerous; the stars were -eclipsed by flaming gas; the frogs gave place to gaping gamins. - - * * * * * - -As it has to be mentioned, and there is no reason why it should not be -mentioned just here, I may state (as a hint to those who keep boarders) -that Judge Coleridge once remarked that if a boarding-house keeper -neglected to give a boarder a dry bed or wholesome food, and in -consequence thereof the latter became sick, it could not be doubted but -that the landlord might be compelled to make compensation in damages to -the sufferer. His lordship also went on to say, in effect, that if the -White Hart Inn, High-street, Borough, had been a boarding-house, and Sam -Weller had given the wooden leg of number six to thirteen, and the pair -of Hessians of thirteen to number six; or the two pairs of halves of the -commercial to the snuggery inside the bar, and the painted tops of the -snuggery to the commercial, so that any of those 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.[402] - - - - -CHAPTER X. - -MORE ABOUT BOARDING-HOUSE KEEPERS. - - -Again it was night. All the boarders were assembled around the -tea-table; not exactly, however, as Dr. Talmage would wish, for he said -that you should be seated wide enough apart to have room to take out -your handkerchief if you want to cry at any pitiful story, or to spread -yourself in laughter if someone propound an irresistible conundrum. - -The tea was none of that good old stuff that once brought $50 a pound, -but some of the adulterated mixture, thirty million pounds of which -Uncle Sam, Aunt Columbia and their little ones, pour annually into their -saucers and empty into their mouths. - -“Now, then, Mr. Lawyer,” said my friend Mr. Jim Crax, as the bread and -butter, tea and toast were fast disappearing off the table on to the -chairs, “kindly redeem your promise, and tell us the difference between -a boarding-house keeper and an hotel-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 might be as -well to say, in the first place, that a boarding-house is not in common -parlance, or in legal meaning, every private house where one or more -boarders are occasionally kept upon special considerations; but is a -_quasi_-public house, where boarders are generally and habitually -received as a matter of business, and which is held out to the public -and known as a place of entertainment of that kind.[403] The chief -distinction between a boarding-house and an inn, and the one from which -all others naturally flow, is that the keeper of a boarding-house can -choose his own guests, admitting some and rejecting others, as to him in -his discretion or according to his whims and humors may seem best; while -an innkeeper is obliged to entertain all travelers of good conduct, and -possessed of means of payment, who choose to stop at his house, and -those who do stay he must provide with all they have occasion for while -on their way.”[404] - -“That seems rather hard on the innkeeper.” - -“No: he is compensated by having greater privileges than his humbler -brother; and such a rule is necessary for the welfare and convenience of -the traveling public, who cannot be expected, in the hurry of -journeyings, to stop and hunt through a town for a night’s lodging, -making a special bargain with the keeper of the house. A lodging-house -keeper makes a special contract with every man that comes to him, -whereas an innkeeper is bound, without any particular agreement, to -provide lodging and entertainment for all who come to him, at a -reasonable price.[405] In the one case the guest is entertained on an -implied contract from day to day; in the other, there is an express -contract for a certain time at a certain rate.”[406] - -“But surely,” said Jim Crax, “oftentimes a definite agreement to board -is made with an hotel-keeper.” - -“Of course, I know that,” I replied. “But, then, if he does so on the -arrival of his guest he loses the rights and privileges as well as the -liabilities of his order; although an arrangement as to the price only, -after one has become a guest, will not have that effect.[407] And it has -been held that a public hotel at a watering place possessing medicinal -springs, and opened only during the summer and fall for the -accommodation of visitors in search of health and pleasure, is, in fact, -only a boarding-house, the visitors not being guests for a day, night, -or week, but lodgers or boarders for a season.”[408] - -“What,” said the landlady’s daughter, who was angling for the young law -student and so tried to season her generally frivolous conversation with -an occasional semi-sensible remark or question, “What are the privileges -of an innkeeper which a boarding-house 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 hieroglyphics on Cleopatra’s Needle. - -“I don’t,” said a lady with greater honesty. “But pray, don’t attempt to -define it. I never try to find out the meaning of a word since I once -looked in Johnson’s dictionary and found that network was ‘anything -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 lodgers for their charges,” remarked the -seediest of the 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 -law. This they have, for instance, in New York, New Hampshire, and -Wisconsin;[409] and in Connecticut 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 recoup themselves after a certain time.”[410] - -“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. - -“How would it be if a man agreed to go to a boarding-house and then -backed out and went elsewhere?” asked my _vis-a-vis_ at the table. - -“Well, where a man of the name of Stewart agreed by word of mouth with -one who took boarders 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 quarters at the house, the court considered that the bargain was -not a contract concerning land within the Statute of Frauds and so did -not require to be in writing, and that Stewart was liable to pay for the -breach of his agreement.”[411] - -“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 concerned. In fact, although -not so bad as Marshal d’Albert, who was always taken ill whenever he saw -a roast sucking-pig, I am like the celebrated Guianerius--pork always -gives me a violent palpitation of the heart.” - -“’Tis curious what antipathies some people 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 vegetarian.” - -“I have heard of another who was made ill if he ever ate any mutton,” -continued the gentleman; “and of a man who always had an attack of the -gout a few hours after eating fish. In fact, the celebrated Erasmus -could not smell fish without being thrown into a fever; Count -d’Armstadt never failed to go off in a faint if he knowingly or -unknowingly partook of any dish containing the slightest modicum of -olive oil; the learned Scaliger would shudder in every limb on beholding -water-cresses; and Vladisiaus, of Poland, would fly at the sight of -apples.” - -“I read once of a lady who, if she ventured to taste lobster salad at a -dancing party, would, before she could return to the ball-room, be -covered with ugly 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?” queried -the law student. - -“Yes. You remember that in the days of the Plantagenets the Houses of -Parliament solemnly resolved that no man, of what state or condition -soever he might be, should have at dinner or supper, or any other time, -more than two courses, and each of two sorts of victual 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 flesh of any kind during Lent -and on Fridays and Saturdays, was punished by a fine of ten shillings, -or imprisonment for ten days;[412] and in the days of Queen Bess the -fine was increased to £3 and the term of imprisonment to three months; -but if any one had three dishes of sea-fish on his table he might have -one of flesh also.”[413] - -“Did Elizabeth do this from any religious motive?” asked a young divine. - -“Oh, 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, Archbishop Cranmer commanded that no clergyman should have -more than three blackbirds in a pie unless he was a bishop and then he -might have four, but he allowed himself and his brother of York to have -six.” - -“When then, pray, did the fashion of having ‘four-and-twenty blackbirds -baked in a pie’ come into vogue?” asked my wife, who had a good memory -for infantile rhymes. - - - - -CHAPTER XI. - -CHARMS OF FURNISHED APARTMENTS. - - -“_De gustibus non est disputandum_,” was originally observed by a man of -sense, however many blockheads may since have repeated it; and as my -tastes in the matter of comestibles did not harmonize with those of the -several respectable boarding-house keepers beneath whose roofs we -successively took shelter, it was settled in a committee of the whole -family that Mrs. 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-Acting-Assistant Commissary-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 taste, in a -locality not objectionable and at a rate proportionate to the depth or -rather shallowness of my pocket, was discovered and all necessary -arrangements made with the landlord. - -To avoid all possibility of future disputations with the owner, (and -especially as a contract to let lodgings is a contract concerning an -interest in land within the meaning of that celebrated troublesome -statute passed in the twenty-ninth year of his rascally majesty, Charles -II, and entitled “an act for the prevention of frauds and perjuries,” -and so must be in writing,[414]) determined to follow the good advice of -Mr. Woodfall, and have our agreement reduced to black and white. My -instructions to my clerk in preparing the document were, to specify the -amount of rent, the time of entry, the length of notice to quit required -and such other particulars as the nature of the case rendered requisite, -and to have a list of the goods and chattels in the apartments affixed. - -Alas, I found the truth of the old adage, that a lawyer 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 behalf of the real owner, for my -acquaintance had but a lease of the place, 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 -paid up, and whether they were likely to be kept so.[415] Of course I -knew that if I had at that particular period of my existence chanced to -have been living in New England, or in New York State, or in some of -the other States of the Union, I could not have been troubled if in that -house, as the power of distress exists in those places no longer;[416] -but we were in a State in which it is still retained, or at least was -then. - -When I told my wife of the narrow escape we had had she asked me if I -had ever made inquiries as to whether the landlords of the hotels at -which we stayed were in arrear for rent. - -“No,” I replied; “the rule is different in respect to hotels.” - -“Why?” - -“For the benefit of trade; otherwise business could not be carried on at -all.” - -“But what would we have had there except my cat and bird, our clothes, -and your books?” urged Mrs. L. - -“Nothing more would have been wanted.” - -“Could they have taken our clothes? I thought all such things were -exempt.” - -“Generally speaking, they are from seizure for debt; but not from -distress for rent, unless they are in actual use at the time. In 1796 -Mr. Baynes, who had furnished lodgings at half a guinea a week, was two -months in arrear, and a bailiff appeared upon the scene and took his -wearing apparel and that of Mrs. B., although part of it was actually in -the wash-tub at the time; and Lord Kenyon said it was all right.[417] -The same judge decided in another case that a landlord could legally -take the clothes belonging to a man’s wife and children, while -they--the ‘clothes screens,’ as Carlyle calls them--not the -clothes--were in bed, although the bipeds intended 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.[418] But Kenyon, my dear, sometimes -said absurd things. For instance, once, when indignant at the delay of -an attorney, he exclaimed, wrathfully, ‘This is the last hair in 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 beautiful -pussy?” said Mrs. Lawyer, looking over where - - The cat’s dark silhouette on the wall, - A couchant 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 property; and that reason might not be applicable to the case -of a costly Angora like yours, and you know, _cessante ratione cessat et -ipsa lex_; but your bird might have been taken.”[419] - -“It seems strange that the landlord can take the property of other -people to pay his tenant’s debts.” - -“It does; and in many parts of this country only the goods of the debtor -can be taken,[420] and the judges are generally inclined to deliver the -lodger from the claws of the landlord; and so it has been held that -while the goods of an assignee of the tenant are liable, those of a mere -under-tenant are not;[421] and in England, of late years, an act has -been passed for the protection of the lodger’s goods from the claims of -the landlord for rent due him by his immediate tenant.”[422] - -“But if our things had been taken to pay the rent, could we not have -made the other boarders contribute their share?” - -“No, I am afraid not,”[423] I answered. - - * * * * * - -Our intended rooms being now somewhat denuded of their necessary -furnishings we arranged with our landlord-about-to-be to send in all -necessary articles within a reasonable time. Unfortunately, however, -this new arrangement was not embodied 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 had been in writing, it would -then have formed an inseparable part of the contract, and the man could -not have obtained his rent until he had done his duty.[424] - -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 were honored with the visit of a choleric gent, who informed us that -he occupied the rooms on the flat below and that our water pipes had -leaked through and damaged irreparably 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 examination; -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.[425] - -We next had trouble about a stovepipe which had to pass through another -person’s room. When we 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 -pipe through his room before the surly fellow moved in he only had the -room subject to the easement of the stovepipe and hole,[426] I 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 spirt, 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 exploded with a terrific uproar. Considerable -damage was done; my wife was clamorous that I should at once interview -the landlord, especially as we thought that the accident could not have -happened 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 the defect, or had reason to suspect it, or that damage was to be -apprehended from the use of the boiler for the purpose for which it was -intended;[427] although on one occasion the courts held a landlord -liable for injuries arising from the explosion of gas, caused by the -pipes in the tenant’s room not having been properly secured.[428] - -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 coming through the roof and -dropping down in ugly splashes upon one of our most handsome and costly -volumes. - -“Can we make the landlord pay 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. I remember Baron Martin saying that one who takes a -floor in a house must be held to take the premises as they are, and -cannot complain that the house was not constructed differently. 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 cannot -be held responsible for what no reasonable care and vigilance could have -provided against. He cannot certainly be considered guilty of negligence -if he has caused the roof to be examined periodically, and if it was all -secure the last time it was looked at.[429] Still, in New York State it -was decided that where a landlord, who himself occupied an upper flat, -allowed liquids to leak through into his tenants’ rooms, he was -liable.”[430] - -“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 perfectly -clear 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 large gaps opened in the main walls, and it took several hours of -hard pumping daily to keep the water out of the basement.[431] - -“In New Hampshire, I admit, it has been held that where a landlord -negligently constructs his building, or negligently allows it to -continue out of repair, he is liable for injuries to his tenants;[432] -and in New York the rule is said to be that when buildings are in good -repair when leased and afterward become ruinous and dangerous, the -owner is not responsible unless he has expressly agreed to repair.”[433] - -“Surely, then, one has not to pay rent when a house is in such a -wretched state? I suppose we are not bound to stay here.” - -“Yes, to both your queries. The 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 misdescription of the -premises, or where they have been found to be uninhabitable in -consequence of the wrongful act or default of the landlord himself;[434] -and it is not perfectly clear that he can do so even then.[435] But I -must go out for the present, my dear. Fare thee well.” - -In the hall down stairs I met Mr. Screwhard, our landlord, a gentleman -who, from his personal appearance, 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 poker. As I was bidding -him a hurried “Good morning,” he placed his body, so long, so lean, and -so straight that you might have taken it for a telegraph pole in -consumption, before 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.” - -“Gammon!” said I; “you will have to unlock it, then, to let me in; for -when you rented me the rooms you impliedly granted all that was -necessary for their free use and full enjoyment, such as the use of the -hall and stairs whenever required, and not only when you choose.”[436] - -“I will yield to your wishes for this night only,” said Screwhard, in a -voice as solemn as if he 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 imperatively.” - -“Stuff and nonsense!” I replied; “I have a right to use the bell and the -knocker, as nothing was said to the contrary before;[437] and I shall -use them.” - -And impatient with the old fellow I passed on, saying to myself: “The -man must be a fool. An action will lie against him if he attempts to -interfere with our use of the necessary adjuncts of his 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.[438] But we have not -been long enough for that.” - -Apollo stayed not his fiery steeds in their downward career towards the -happy isles of the west that day, and Phœbus’ sickly-looking sister held -sway in high heaven when I again reached the door of my new domicile. -With me 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 -announcement that our bedrooms were fully occupied by animals of a small -size, broad for their length, darkish in color, scented, -anthropophagous, and designated by the same letters as very dark drawing -pencils. - -I disclosed the fact to T. J., who, being somewhat of a naturalist, -might, I thought, be able to prescribe some cure for this new found -evil. He at once exclaimed: - -“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 -endeavor to entertain Mrs. Lawyer until twelve, and will call in the -morning to hear the result of the experiment.” - -“You’re very kind, I am sure. But I am always willing to share things -equally with my wife; besides, 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 replied. - -“But can you give up your lodgings in that summary manner?” - -“Long since it was decided that where a man 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 the position that if the demised premises are -encumbered with a nuisance of so serious a nature that no person can -reasonably be expected to live in them, the tenant is at liberty to -throw them up. And he said that this was so because of the implied -condition that the landlord undertakes to rent the place in an habitable -state. Lord Abinger, in the same case, went even further, and gave it as -his opinion that no authorities were wanted to establish the point, and -that the case was one which common sense alone enabled them to decide. A -man, he remarked, who lets a ready furnished house, surely does so under -an implied condition, or obligation, that the house is in a fit 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.”[439] - -“But have not other equally learned judges had very grave doubts upon -the subject?” queried Jones. - -“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, that it -is or shall be reasonably fit for habitation, 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.”[440] - -“Does not that put an extinguisher on the authority you cited?” said -Jones. - -“No; in some of these latter decisions the case of a ready furnished -house is expressly distinguished upon the ground that the letting of -such a house is a contract of a mixed nature, being in fact a bargain -for a house and furniture, which, of necessity, must be such as are fit -for the purpose for which they are to be used. Abinger was particularly -strong on the point. He said that ‘if a party contract for the lease of -a house ready furnished, it is to be furnished in a proper manner, and -so as to be fit for immediate occupation. Suppose,’ said he, ‘it turn -out that there is not a bed in the house; surely the party is not bound -to occupy it or continue in it. So, also, in the case of a house -infected with vermin; if bugs be found in the bed, even after entering -into possession, the lodger or occupier is not bound to stay in the -house. Suppose again,’ he continued, ‘the tenant discover that there are -not sufficient chairs in the house, or that they are not of a sort fit -for use: he may give up possession.’[441] 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 in a good and -tenantable state and reasonably fit for human occupation from the very -day on which the tenancy is dated to begin, and that where such a house -is in such a condition that there is either great discomfort or danger -to health in entering and dwelling in it, then the intending tenant is -entitled to repudiate the contract altogether.”[442] - -“Well, that is strong, I am sure.” - -“Abinger held that the letting of the goods and chattels, as well as the -house, implies that the party who lets it so furnished is under an -obligation to supply the other contracting party with whatever goods and -chattels may be fit for the use and occupation of such a house according -to its particular description and suitable in every respect. And Judge -Shaw, of Massachusetts, says that in the case of furnished rooms in a -lodging house, let for a particular season, a warranty may be implied -that they are suitably fitted for such use.”[443] - -“I should think,” said Jones, “that a would be tenant ought to go and -inspect the premises for himself.” - -“If he 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.”[444] - -“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.”[445] - -“Indeed. My lady, the Dowager Countess of Winchelsea, agreed to rent a -furnished house in Wilton Crescent, London, for three months of the -season of 1875 for the sum of 450 guineas. When her ladyship arrived -with her servants and personal luggage, she perceived an unpleasant -smell in the house, and declining to occupy it, had her horses taken out -of the stable. On investigation, it was found that the drainage was in a -very bad state, rendering the house quite unfit for occupation. In three -weeks’ time, however, matters were put right, but her ladyship refused -to go back or to pay rent. A suit was brought, in which the whole court -unanimously held that the state of the drains entitled the Countess to -rescind the bargain and to refuse to pay rent.[446] Abinger thought that -if a tenant, on entering his lodgings, found out that the previous -occupier had left because some one had recently died in them of the -plague or scarlet fever, he would not be compelled to remain.[447] 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 landlord.”[448] - -Just then a slight movement on the part of Jones made the chair on which -he was perched creak, crack, stretch out its legs, and let him down. As -he was hastily apologizing for the damage, I remarked: - -“Don’t trouble yourself, the occupier of furnished apartments is not -responsible for deterioration by ordinary wear or tear in the reasonable -use of the goods of the landlord.”[449] - -“I’ll go now, at all events, as I am up,” said our friend, as he seized -his hat and made his adieux. - -_Quære_, was that a white handkerchief protruding slightly from his -pistol pocket? Indispensables are tighter now-a-days than they used to -be. - - - - -CHAPTER XII. - -NOTICE TO QUIT, AND TURNING OUT. - - -Doubtless many an anxious housekeeper is hurrying rapidly through the -pages of this book to discover whether or no Tom Jones’ piece of -entomological information was correct; but I shall not enlighten them on -the point, for this is a work on legal subjects, and cannot be taken up -with recounting investigations concerning the habits of such small -things as insects. Saith not the ancient maxim: “_De minimis non curat -lex_”? - -We had, however, other things to think about ere morning’s light again -illuminated the eastern sky. Scarcely had we settled ourselves for the -night when my wife started up, exclaiming: - -“Hear the loud alarum bells! What a tale of terror their turbulency -tells! In the startled ear of night how they scream out their affright -in a clamorous appealing to the mercy of the fire--in a mad -expostulation with the deaf and frantic fire! What a tale their terror -tells of despair! How they clang, and clash, and roar!” - -“Ha! and well for us that their twanging and their clanging have aroused -us; for see! the house opposite is all wrapped in flames, and the wind -is driving right toward us!” - -Ah! then throughout our house there was hurrying to and fro, and -gathering tears, and tremblings of distress, and cheeks all pale, -which, but ten minutes past, pressed the soft pillows with their -loveliness; and there were sudden snatchings of such as by chance lay -within reach, and leaving things which ne’er might be regained; and -there was rushing in hot haste--the men, the chattering women, and the -pattering child, went pouring forward with impetuous speed, and swiftly -showed in the back yard in _robes de nuit_. - -I jumped into my pantaloons; fortunately, they were not like those of -Monseigneur d’Artois, nor was I as particular as his highness; four tall -lackeys had to hold him up in the air every morning, that he might fall -into his breeches without vestige of wrinkle, and from them the same -four, in the same way but with more effort, had to deliver him at night. -We 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 moving rag screens, over-heaped with shreds and tatters 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 are yet quit of my friend, Mr. -Screwhard, your landlord,” was the reply. - -“What do you mean?” queried my wife. - -“Ask your respected husband; he 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 matter. We must pay rent until we -can get rid of our liability by a regular notice to quit.” - -“But we can’t occupy the place.” - -“That makes no difference.”[450] - -“Then you had no provision in your lease exempting you in case of fire,” -remarked Jones. - -“Unfortunately, not.” - -“But why should we pay when we cannot use the place?” asked my wife, -growing warm. - -“The rule is, my dear, that when the law imposes a duty upon one and he -is prevented performing it without any fault on his part, and he has no -one to whom he may look for satisfaction, the courts will excuse the -non-performance; but when a man voluntarily takes a duty or charge upon -himself he must perform his contract, come what may, because he might -have provided against all accidents in his agreement.” - -“And, you stupid! you did not have the lease properly drawn!” - -“Exactly so, my female Solomon,” I replied, indignantly. - -“Well, I must say,” said Mrs. L., “that I fear I am bound for life to - - “‘A wretch so empty, that if e’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[451]--none of it -out of the furniture[452]--so that the landlord can distrain for the -whole rent;[453] and even were he to turn the tenant out, no -apportionment could be made for the goods.[454] The law makes no -difference between lodgers and other tenants as to the payment of their -rents, or turning them out of possession.” - -“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 month, a month’s -notice; if from week to week, a week’s notice; and if a lodger leaves -without giving such notice he is liable for the rent for a half year, -or a quarter, or a month, or a week, as the case may be.”[455] - -“Still,” I said, anxious to contradict somebody, “it has been ruled by a -very learned judge that 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 he 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 be -given. It is to be regarded 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 inconvenient 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 rent.[456] 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.”[457] - -“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 -concerned, Earle, C. J., said that, although it had been laid down that -a weekly or a monthly holding does not require a week’s or a month’s -notice to determine it unless there be some special agreement or custom, -he did not find that any person ever held that the interest of a tenant -so holding might be put an end to without 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 -week; some notice must be necessary. Williams, J., gave it as his view, -that whether it be a tenancy from year to year, or week to week, in -either case there must be a legal expression of intention that the -tenancy should cease. The inclination of his opinion was that where the -holding is from week to week a week’s notice should 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 be 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.”[458] - -“And doubtless he is right. And if it is necessary at all, it must, of -course, expire on the proper day, _i. e._, at the end of some week of -the tenancy.”[459] - -“Yes; and a weekly tenancy beginning on Saturday ends on Saturday.[460] -How would it be, Lawyer, if the landlord rented the rooms to some one -else before the expiration of the week?” - -“That would amount to a rescission of the bargain, and he could not sue -the defaulting tenant for rent for the days the apartments were -empty;[461] but lighting or warming the rooms, or putting up ‘to let’ in -the window, will not prevent the owner looking to the man who has left -without giving the proper notice.”[462] - -“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;[463] -otherwise you cannot leave.”[464] - -“Well,” said my wife, “I presume that at all events the landlord will -have 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 rebuild or repair the house for the benefit of -the tenant,”[465] was my melancholy reply. - -Fortunately, breakfast does not last as long as dinner; so this -conversation (which had grown irksome to myself, and has proved probably -equally, if not more so, to my readers) was brought to a conclusion -before very much more was said on this subject, and I gladly availed -myself of the opportunity of going out on business. - -Down town I met my old friend, Dr. Lane, who told me of the tiff he had -just had with his landlord. Some months previously he had hired from one -Johnson certain rooms in a fashionable locality, at a rental of a couple -of hundred dollars a year, with the privilege of putting a brass plate -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 excellent, Lane got in arrear; so -Dixon removed the brass plate, and refused to let the 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 -damages, 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 naturally, was -dissatisfied with the verdict of these twelve men and appealed to the -court, who, however, 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 considered a distinct and substantive -trespass.[466] Of course the disciple of Galen was overjoyed, and -insisted upon my taking a glass of something alcoholic while he told me -of the little trip that he purposed taking at his landlord’s expense. - -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, pocketed the key, and -refused the boarder access to them 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.[467] At last it -dawned upon me that in the case I was conning over there had been no -actual 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.[468] - -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 where they were damaged -by the rain. The boarder, not liking 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.[469] - -Before returning home I called on a friend who also dwelt in furnished -apartments. Far from seraphic was the state of mind in which I found -him. - -“What can be done to stop that horrid noise? It will drive me mad!” was -his petulant salutation. - -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 teething 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 disturb and annoy you, but -rather for the good of the juvenile,” I remarked. - -“As for that matter I presume their intentions are honorable, but that -does not make any difference.” - -“Yes it does; the very point has been decided by Judge Van Hoesen, of -New York. To him a Mr. Pool applied for an injunction to prevent one off -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 tenants cannot restrain the others from -any use they may choose to make of their own apartments, consistent -with good neighborhood and with a reasonable regard for the comfort of -others.” - -“Humph!” - -“The judge added that if the rocking of a cradle, the wheeling of a -carriage, the whirling 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 be clear that the noise is -unreasonable, and made without due regard to the rights and comforts of -other occupants.[470] And in England it was held that the 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.”[471] - -“At all events, no judge can compel me to stay in the 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 experiences in that -line have nothing to do with the subject of this book. - - - - -INDEX. - - -=Absence of guest=--loss of baggage during, p. 40. - -=Accommodation=--innkeeper need only supply reasonable, p. 7. - payment for bad, p. 16. - -=Action against innkeeper=--for refusing to receive guest, p. 12. - for supplying bad food, p. 14. - -=Agreement to furnish=--p. 177. - -=Agreement with innkeeper=--as to board, pp. 61, 168. - as to room, p. 61. - -=Assault=--liability of innkeeper for servant’s assault, p. 30. - protecting guests from, pp. 74-124. - - -=Baggage=--what is, pp. 74, 86-88. - articles of jewelry, p. 86. - innkeeper liable for loss in bus, p. 22. - and during temporary absence of guest, p. 40. - innkeepers are insurers of, p. 46. - need not be given to landlord, p. 47. - where guest retains exclusive possession, pp. 51, 52. - of one stopping elsewhere, p. 60. - -=Ball=--innkeeper not liable for loss of a guest at, p. 60. - -=Bed=--guest need not go to, p. 40. - damp bed, p. 165. - innkeeper in bed, p. 13. - -=Betting and bets=--when improper, pp. 63-65. - when bets recovered, p. 64. - all void, pp. 65, 66. - loser recovering stakes, pp. 66, 67. - -=Billiards=--pp. 70, 71. - -=Bird=--liable to distress, p. 176. - -=Boarder=--annoying fellow-boarders, pp. 163, 164. - must look after his own goods, pp. 159, 160. - -=Boarding-house=--what is a, p. 166. - differs from hotel, p. 167. - -=Boarding-house keeper=--liability of, pp. 154, 155. - what amount of care required in, p. 155. - liable for gross neglect, p. 160. - liability for theft by stranger, p. 161. - liability for faults of servants, p. 165. - can choose his lodgers, p. 167. - right of lien, p. 169. - -=Breakages in hotel=--when guest is liable for, p. 101. - by boarder, p. 188. - -=Burglars=--p. 107. - - -=Card-playing=--description of, p. 71. - in private, p. 68. - -=Carelessness of guest=--in elevator, p. 24. - when intoxicated, p. 58. - loss through, pp. 108, 109. - leaving door unlocked, pp. 112-115. - -=Carriage=--left outside inn-yard, p. 118. - stolen, p. 119. - -=Cat distrainable=--p. 176. - -=Clothing=--innkeeper need not supply, p. 19. - innkeeper’s lien on, pp. 137-141. - liable to seizure for rent, pp. 175-176. - -=Commercial traveler=--goods of, in private room, pp. 52, 112. - - -=Dinner hours=--p. 54. - -=Dinner-set=--p. 77. - -=Distraining for rent=--furnished house, p. 174. - what things liable to distress, pp. 175, 176. - See CAT, CLOTHING. - -=Dog in hotel=--p. 43. - -=Door=--left unlocked at innkeeper’s 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. 196. - - -=Ejecting guests=--for bad manners, p. 26. - for non-payment, p. 40. - -=Ejecting tenants=--pp. 196, 197. - -=Emigrants=--house for, an inn, p. 20. - -=Entomological=--pp. 16, 187. - -=Explosion of stove=--p. 179. - -=Excessive charges=--pp. 30, 124. - -=Expectorating=--pp. 20-22. - - -=Fire=--liability of innkeeper for losses by, p. 103. - -=Food=--innkeeper selling bad food, p. 14. - boarding-house keeper selling bad food, p. 165. - -=Friend=--cannot sue for lost goods, p. 59. - See VISITOR. - -=Furnished apartments=--contract for, must be in writing, p. 174. - liability of landlord to repair, p. 180. - leaving for disrepair, p. 181. - lodger entitled to all appurtenances, p. 182. - must be free from vermin, pp. 183, 184. - must be properly furnished, p. 185. - must be fit for immediate habitation, p. 186. - notice to quit, pp. 191-194. - noise of fellow-lodgers in, pp. 198, 199. - - -=Gaming=--forbidden in inns, p. 68. - what is, p. 68. - lawful games, pp. 70, 71. - unlawful games, p. 69. - -=Goods and property=--definition of, p. 85. - -=Guest=--must be a traveler, p. 59. - one purchasing refreshment may be a guest, p. 59. - neighbor not a, p. 14. - when able to pay must always be admitted, p. 9. - when tender necessary, pp. 9, 10. - may be refused admission if improper, pp. 10, 11. - or suffering from contagious disease, p. 10. - or if inn is full, p. 11. - or if he is in filthy state, p. 11. - need not register his name, p. 13. - nor go to bed, p. 40. - nor take all his meals at inn, p. 60. - cannot carry on business at inn, p. 30. - liability when retaining exclusive possession of goods, p. 59. - for breakages, p. 101. - no lien on, pp. 137, 138. - - -=Horse of guest=--of one stopping elsewhere, pp. 60, 122, 123. - after departure of guest, pp. 62, 120. - stolen from inn stable, p. 129. - injured in inn stable, pp. 120, 121. - injured in field, p. 122. - lien on, for keep of another, p. 128. - for its own keep, p. 129. - for its owner’s keep, p. 127. - stolen horses, p. 132. - -=Hotel=--differs not from inn, pp. 2, 3. - derivation of, p. 3. - American and English, pp. 54-57. - See INN. - -=Hotel-keeper=--See INNKEEPER. - - -=Improper persons=--need not be admitted into hotel, p. 10. - -=Inevitable accident=--liability of innkeeper for, p. 47. - -=Infant=--lien on goods of, p. 149. - -=Inn=--derivation of word, p. 3. - differs not from hotel, pp. 2, 3. - origin of, pp. 3, 4. - development of, p. 5. - definition of, pp. 18, 19. - description of country inn, pp. 7, 8. - of city inn, p. 23. - sign not essential to, p. 5. - -=Innkeeper=--definition of, pp. 5, 19. - need not let guest choose a room, pp. 7, 39. - must receive all proper persons, pp. 9, 167. - but not those disorderly, p. 10. - or having contagious disease, p. 10. - or if house be 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, p. 13. - but sickness of servants is, p. 12. - or infancy, p. 12. - See LIEN. - not bound to supply clothes, p. 19. - liable for baggage lost in bus, pp. 22, 62. - for assault of servants upon guest, p. 30. - for goods of guest lost or stolen, pp. 45, 46, 92. - unless guest was negligent, pp. 45, 108. - are insurers of guest’s property, pp. 46, 103. - in whatever part of hotel, pp. 47, 48, 92, 111. - cannot make guest take charge, p. 48. - when his liability ceases, pp. 61-63. - liability for guest’s money, p. 90. - for loss by fire, p. 103. - for acts of mice, p. 104. - for loss by burglars, p. 107. - for horses and carriages, pp. 118-124. - goods outside inn, p. 118. - lien on horses, pp. 128-133. - -=Intoxication=--loss of goods by guest, p. 58. - innkeeper drunk in bed, p. 69. - - -=Laundress=--liability of innkeeper to, p. 29. - -=Lawyer’s dinners=--p. 34. - -=Leakage of roof=--p. 180. - -=Liability of innkeeper=--when it ceases, pp. 61, 62. - limitation of, p. 80. - statutory limitation, p. 81. - construed strictly, pp. 82, 83. - not applicable to horses, p. 120. - -=Livery-stable keeper=--lien of, pp. 134, 135. - -=Locking door=--pp. 112, 114. - -=Lien=--right of, cannot be sold, pp. 131, 148. - on goods of third parties, pp. 132, 146, 150. - special agreement as to payment, p. 134. - of livery-stable keeper, p. 134. - for improving horse, p. 135. - none on person of guest, pp. 137, 138. - nor on clothing, pp. 137-140. - why innkeepers have a, p. 144. - only on goods of guests, pp. 145, 146. - when it ceases, p. 147. - no limit to amount of, p. 148. - boarding-house keepers, p. 169. - See HORSES. - - -=Manners at table=--pp. 26, 27. - -=Matches=--taking, p. 102. - -=Misstatements as to hotels=--p. 23. - -=Money=--guest depositing in safe, p. 84. - liability of landlord for, pp. 90, 91, 93. - when entrusted to third party, p. 96. - -=Mosquitoes=--p. 74. - - -=Necessaries of a wife=--pp. 32, 33. - -=Neighbor=--cannot be a guest, pp. 14, 60. - 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. 76, 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 fire, p. 195. - -=Restaurant=--not an inn, p. 35. - -=Robbery=--liability of host for loss of guest’s goods, pp. 45, 92, 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 VALUABLES. - -=Shaving=--when barber liable for accidents, p. 99. - -=Singing=--of fellow-boarders, pp. 120, 121. - -=Sleeping-car owners=--neither innkeepers nor common carriers, pp. 76, 77. - -=Smells=--effect on tenants’ rights of noxious, pp. 186, 187. - -=Stables=--not a necessary for an inn, p. 19. - landlord’s liability for bad, pp. 120, 121. - -=Stove-pipe=--passing through room, p. 178. - -=Sunday travelers=--must be admitted by innkeeper, p. 13. - - -=Tavern an inn=--p. 36. - -=Tender of payment=--by guest, pp. 9, 10. - -=Traveler=--who is a, p. 59. - - -=Valuables=--when need be deposited in safe, p. 48. - notice of rule as to deposit of, pp. 49, 50, 79. - personal jewelry, p. 79. - when to be deposited, pp. 84, 96. - - -=Watch=--as to depositing in safe, pp. 79, 80, 83, 85. - -=Watering-place=--hotel at, p. 168. - -=Water-pipes=--leakage of, p. 178. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1] Taylor _v._ Monnot, 4 Duer, 116; Jones _v._ Osborn, 2 Chit. 486. - -[2] People _v._ Jones, 54 N. Y. (Barb.) 311; St. Louis _v._ Siegrist, -46 Mo. 593. - -[3] Wharton’s Law of Innkeepers, 8. - -[4] Gen. xlii:27. - -[5] Bac. Abr. Innk. B; Parker _v._ Flint, 12 Mod. 255; Dickinson _v._ -Rodgers, 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 179. - -[6] Fell _v._ Knight, 8 Mees. & W. 269; Doyle _v._ Walker, 26 Q. B. -(Ont.) 502. - -[7] Taylor _v._ Humphreys, 30 Law J. 262; Watson _v._ Cross, 2 Duval, -(Ky.) 147; Newton _v._ Trigg, 1 Show. 276; Commonwealth _v._ Mitchell, -1 Phil. (Pa.) 63. - -[8] Rex _v._ Ivens, 7 Car. & P. 213. - -[9] Fell _v._ Knight, 8 Mees. & W. 276. - -[10] Wharton, p. 78. - -[11] Doyle _v._ Walker, 26 Q. B. (Ont.) 502. - -[12] Fell _v._ Knight, _supra_. - -[13] Howell _v._ Jackson, 6 Car. & P. 742; Moriarty _v._ Brooks, Ibid. -634. - -[14] Markham _v._ Brown, 8 N. H. 523; Fell _v._ Knight, _supra_. - -[15] Rex _v._ Ivens, _supra_; Fell _v._ Knight, _supra_. - -[16] Roll. Abr. 3 F; White’s Case, Dyer, 158. - -[17] Marshall _v._ Fox, Law Rep. 6 Q. B. 370; Markham _v._ Brown, 8 -N.H. 523. - -[18] Mullins _v._ Collins, 43 Law J. M. C. 67. - -[19] Markham _v._ Brown, _supra_; Pinkerton _v._ Woodward, 33 Cal. 557. - -[20] Bac. Abr. Inns, c. 4; Cross _v._ Andrews, Cro. Eliz. 622. - -[21] Addison on Torts, 938. But see Com. Dig. vol. 1, p. 413. - -[22] Curw. Hawk. 714. - -[23] Cayle’s Case, 8 Coke, 32. - -[24] Rex _v._ Luellin, 12 Mod. 445; Reg. _v._ Rymner, L. R. 2 Q. B. D. -136. - -[25] Fell _v._ Knight, 8 Mees. & W. 269. - -[26] Fell _v._ Knight, _supra_. - -[27] Rex _v._ Ivens, 7 Car. &. P. 213. - -[28] “Did you see that absurd paragraph concerning a traveler who was -writing his name in the book when a B. B. sallied out of a crack and -took his way slowly and sedately across the page. The newly arrived -paused and remarked: ‘I’ve been bled by St. Joe fleas, bitten by Kansas -City spiders, and interviewed by Fort Scot graybacks, but I’ll be -hanged if I ever was in a place before where the bedbugs looked over -the hotel register to find out where your room was.’” - -“It is generally not necessary for them to take that trouble,” I -replied. - -[29] Rex _v._ Ivens, 7 Car. & P. 213. - -[30] Bac. Abr. vol. 4, p. 448. - -[31] Walling _v._ Potter, 35 Conn. 183. - -[32] Cayle’s Case. - -[33] Roll. Abr. 95. - -[34] 1 Blackst. Com. 430. - -[35] Hart _v._ Windsor, 12 Mees. & W. 68. - -[36] Sutton _v._ Temple, Ibid. 52, 60. - -[37] Peters. Abr. vol. 5, p. 159; Jeremy on Bailments, 139. - -[38] Thompson _v._ Lacy, 3 B. & Ald. 203. See also Dickenson _v._ -Rodgers, 4 Humph. 179. - -[39] Bacon’s Abr. Inns, C. - -[40] Thompson _v._ Lacy, 3 B. & Ald. 283. - -[41] Wintermute _v._ Clarke, 5 Sand. 247; Pinkerton _v._ Woodward, 33 -Cal. 557. - -[42] Parker _v._ Flint, 12 Mod. 255; Parkhurst _v._ Foster, Salk. 287. - -[43] Bacon’s Abr. Inn. C. - -[44] Lyon _v._ Smith, 1 Morris, 184; State _v._ Mathews, 2 Dev. & -B. 424; Bonner _v._ Welborn, 7 Geo. 296. But see Commonwealth _v._ -Wetherbee, 101 Mass. 214. - -[45] Thompson _v._ Lacy, _supra_. - -[46] Krohn _v._ Sweeny, 2 Daly, N. Y. 200. - -[47] Willard _v._ Reinhardt, 2 E. D. Smith, 148. - -[48] Dickinson _v._ Winchester, 4 Cush. 114. - -[49] Bacon’s Abr. Inns, B. - -[50] Robinson _v._ Cove, 22 Vt. 213; Butterfield _v._ Forrester, 11 -East, 60; Rathbun _v._ Payne, 19 Wend. 399. - -[51] Commonwealth _v._ Mitchell, 2 Pars. Sel. Cas. 431. - -[52] Commonwealth _v._ Mitchell, 1 Phila. 63. - -[53] Kelsey _v._ Henry, 49 Ill. 488. - -[54] Prendergast _v._ Compton, 8 Car. & P. 454. - -[55] Dons de Comus, Paris, 1758. - -[56] Foster _v._ Taylor, 3 Camp. N. P. 49. - -[57] Foster _v._ Taylor, 3 Camp. N. P. 49. - -[58] Collard _v._ White, 1 Starkie. 171. - -[59] Bacon’s Abr. Inns, C. - -[60] Ambler _v._ Skinner, 7 Rob. (N. Y.) 561. - -[61] Wade _v._ Thayer, 40. Cal. 578. - -[62] Lane _v._ Ironmonger, 13 Mees. & W. 368. - -[63] Atkins _v._ Carwood, 7 Car. & P. 759. - -[64] Freestone _v._ Butcher, 9 Car. & P. 643. - -[65] Parke _v._ Kleeber, 37 Pa. St. 251. - -[66] Gilman _v._ Andrus, 28 Vt. 241. - -[67] Wood _v._ Kelly, 8 Cush. 406. - -[68] Carpenter _v._ Taylor, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 193. - -[69] Regina _v._ Rymer, L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 136. - -[70] Bennett _v._ Mellor, 5 T. R. 276. See, also, Houser _v._ Tully, 62 -Pa. St. 92. - -[71] Southcote _v._ Stanley, 1 Hurl. & N. 247. - -[72] Per Pollock, B. C. - -[73] Ibid. - -[74] Southcote _v._ Stanley, _supra_. - -[75] Doyle _v._ Walker, 26 Q. B. (Ont.) 502. - -[76] Fell _v._ Knight, 8 Mees. & W. 276. - -[77] Lane _v._ Dixon, 3 M. G. & S. 784. - -[78] Doyle _v._ Walker, _supra_. - -[79] Fell _v._ Knight, 8 Mees. & W. 276. - -[80] McDonald _v._ Edgerton, 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 560 - -[81] Bacon’s Abr. Inns, C; Gelley _v._ Clark, Cro. J. 188. - -[82] Murray _v._ Clarke, 2 Daly, (N. Y.) 102. - -[83] For answer, see page 103. - -[84] Regina _v._ Rymer, L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 141. - -[85] Kent _v._ Shuckard, 2 Barn. & Adol. 803. - -[86] Cashill _v._ Wright, 6 El. & B. 89. - -[87] Year Book, 10 Henry VII, 26. - -[88] Morgan _v._ Ravey, 6 Hurl. & N. 265. - -[89] Ibid. - -[90] Shaw _v._ Berry, 31 Me. 478; Sibley _v._ Aldrich, 33 N. H. 553. - -[91] Kellogg _v._ Sweeney, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 397. - -[92] Rockwell _v._ Proctor, 39 Ga. 105. - -[93] Wilde, J., Mason _v._ Thompson, 9 Pick. 280. - -[94] Jones on Bailments, pp. 95-96. - -[95] Wharton on Innkeepers, p. 88. - -[96] Cayle’s Case; Packard _v._ Northcraft, 2 Met. (Ky.) 439; Norcross -_v._ Norcross, 53 Me. 163; Burrows _v._ Truber, 21 Md. 320; McDonald -_v._ Edgerton, 5 Barb. 560; Coykendall _v._ Eaton, 55 Barb. 188. - -[97] Hallenbake _v._ Fish, 8 Wend. 547. - -[98] Chute _v._ Wiggins, 14 Johns. 175. - -[99] Epps _v._ Hinds, 27 Miss. 657; Simon _v._ Miller, 7 La. An. 368. - -[100] Candy _v._ Spencer, 3 Fost. & F. 306. - -[101] Bennett _v._ Mellor, 5 Term. Rep. 273. - -[102] Johnson _v._ Richardson, 17 Ill. 302; Piper _v._ Hall, 14 La. An. -324; Profilet _v._ Hall, Ibid. 524. - -[103] Saunders _v._ Spencer, Dyer, 266a; Wilson _v._ Halpin, 30 How. -Pr. 124; Packard _v._ Northcraft, 2 Met. (Ky.) 439; Fuller _v._ Coats, -18 Ohio St. 343. - -[104] Stanton _v._ Leland, 4 E. D. Smith, 88; Kellogg _v._ Sweeney, 1 -Lans. N. Y. 397. - -[105] Van Wyck _v._ Howard, 12 How. Pr. 147. - -[106] Profilet _v._ Hall, 16 La. An. 524. - -[107] Morgan _v._ Ravey, 30 L. J. Exch. 131, per Wilde, B.; 6 Hurl. & -N. 265. - -[108] Bernstein _v._ Sweeny, 33 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 271. See, also, Kent -_v._ Midland Rwy. L. R. 10 B. 1; Henderson _v._ Stevenson, L. R. 2 -Scotch & D. 470. - -[109] Purvis _v._ Coleman. 21 N. Y. 111. - -[110] Farnsworth _v._ Packwood, 1 Stark. 249; Packard _v._ Northcraft, -2 Met. (Ky.) 439; Vance _v._ Throckmorton, 5 Bush, (Ky.) 41. - -[111] Farnsworth _v._ Packwood, _supra_. - -[112] Burgess _v._ Clements, 4 Maule & S. 307. - -[113] Packard _v._ Northcraft, 2 Met. (Ky.) 439. - -[114] Richmond _v._ Smith, 8 Barn. & C. 9. - -[115] Richmond _v._ Smith, 8 Barn. & C. 9. - -[116] Jailei _v._ Cardinal, 35 Wis. 118. - -[117] Dessauer _v._ Baker, 1 Wilson (Ind.) 429. - -[118] Milford _v._ Wesley, 1 Wilson (Ind.) 119. - -[119] Walsh _v._ Porterfield, Sup. Ct. Pa. 19 Alb. L. J. 376. - -[120] Bacon, Abridg., vol. 4, p. 448. - -[121] McDonald _v._ Edgerton, 5 Barb. 560; Bennett _v._ Mellor, 5 T. R. -274. - -[122] Per Cockburn, C. J., Atkinson _v._ Sellars, 5 C. B. N. S. 442. - -[123] Walling _v._ Potter, 35 Conn. 183. - -[124] Grinnell _v._ Cook, 3 Hill, (N. Y.) 486. - -[125] Carter _v._ Hobbs, 12 Mich. 52. - -[126] Gelley _v._ Clarke, Cro. Jac. 188; Orange Co. Bank _v._ Brown, 9 -Wend. 114. - -[127] York _v._ Grindstone, 1 Salk. 388; Mason _v._ Thompson, 9 Pick. -280; Peet _v._ McGraw, 25 Wend. 653. - -[128] Ingalsbee _v._ Woods, 33 N. Y. 577; Parsons on Contracts, vol. 2, -p. 153. - -[129] York _v._ Grindstone, _supra_. - -[130] McDaniels _v._ Robinson, 26 Vt. 316. - -[131] Parkhurst _v._ Foster, Sal. 388. - -[132] Pinkerton _v._ Woodward, 33 Cal. 557. - -[133] Shoecraft _v._ Bailey, 25 Iowa, 553; Berkshire Woollen Co. _v._ -Proctor, 7 Cush. 417; Hall _v._ Pike, 100 Mass. 495. - -[134] Chamberlain _v._ Masterson, 26 Ala. 371; Manning _v._ Wells, 9 -Humph. 746; Ewart _v._ Stark, 8 Rich. 423; Hursh _v._ Beyers, 29 Mo. -469; Parkhurst _v._ Foster, Sal. 388. - -[135] Parker _v._ Flint, 12 Mod. 255. - -[136] Lusk _v._ Belote, 22 Minn. 468. - -[137] Wintermate _v._ Clarke, 5 Sandf. 262; Lawrence _v._ Howard, 1 -Utah T. 142. - -[138] McDaniels _v._ Robinson, 28 Vt. 387. - -[139] Corkindale _v._ Eaton, 40 How. N. Y. Pr. 266. - -[140] Sasseen _v._ Clark, 37 Ga. 242. - -[141] Giles _v._ Fauntleroy, 13 Md. 126. - -[142] Adams _v._ Clenn, 41 Ga. 65. - -[143] Stanton _v._ Leland, 4 E. D. Smith, 88. - -[144] Bendetson _v._ French, 46 N. Y. 266; Kellogg _v._ Sweeney, Ibid. -291. - -[145] Good _v._ Elliott, 3 T. R. 693. - -[146] Da Costa _v._ Jones, Cowper, 729. - -[147] McAllister _v._ Haden. 2 Campb. 436. - -[148] Hussey _v._ Crickett, 3 Campb. 160. - -[149] Earl of March _v._ Pigot, 5 Burr. 2802. - -[150] Squires _v._ Whisken, 3 Camp. 140. - -[151] See 8 and 9 Vict., chap. 109. - -[152] Savage _v._ Madden, 36 L. J. Ex. 178. - -[153] Hampden _v._ Walsh, L. R. 1 Q. B. Div. 189. - -[154] Ruchman _v._ Pitcher, 1 Comst. 392. - -[155] Garrison _v._ McGregor, 51 Ill. 473; Adkins _v._ Fleming, 29 -Iowa, 122; Searle _v._ Prevost, 4 Houst. (Del.) 467. But see Johnston -_v._ Russell, 37 Cal. 670. - -[156] Eldred _v._ Malloy, 2 Col. 320. - -[157] Parsons on Contracts, vol. 2, p. 756. - -[158] Yates _v._ Foot, 12 Johns. 1. - -[159] Johnson _v._ Russell, 37 Cal. 670. - -[160] Wharton on Innkeepers, 62. - -[161] Rex _v._ Ashton, 22 L. J. M. C. 1. - -[162] Danford _v._ Taylor, 22 L. T. Rep. 483; Foot _v._ Baker, 6 Scott -N. R. 301. - -[163] Searle _v._ St. Martins’ J. J. 4 J. P. 276; Avards _v._ Dunce, 26 -J. P. 437. - -[164] Patten _v._ Rhymer, 29 L. J. M. C. 189. - -[165] Wharton, 81. - -[166] Lester _v._ Torrens, L. R. 2 Q. B. Div. 403. - -[167] Bew _v._ Harston, L. R. 3 Q. B. Div. 454. - -[168] 13 Geo. II, chap. 19. - -[169] 8 and 9 Vict. chap. 109. sec. 1. - -[170] Wharton, 65. - -[171] Abinger, C. B., in McKinnell _v._ Robinson, 3 M. & W. 439. - -[172] Tanner _v._ Albion, 5 Hill, 128; but see People _v._ Sargeant, 8 -Cowen, 139. - -[173] McDaniels _v._ Commonwealth, 6 Bush. 326. - -[174] Neal’s Case, 22 Gratt. 917. - -[175] Enbanks _v._ State, 3 Hersk. 488. - -[176] Graham _v._ Peat, 1 East, 246. - -[177] Doyle _v._ Walker, 26 U. C. R. 502. - -[178] Cayle’s Case, 8 Co. 32. - -[179] Lasseen _v._ Clark, 37 Ga. 242. - -[180] Pullman Palace Car Co. _v._ Smith, 73 Ill. 360. - -[181] Morgan _v._ Ravey, 6 Hurl. & N. 265. - -[182] Ibid. - -[183] Giles _v._ Libby, 36 Barr. 70. But see Hyatt _v._ Taylor, 51 -Barb. 632, and Rosenplanter _v._ Roessle, 54 N. Y. 262. - -[184] Bodwell _v._ Bragg, 29 Iowa, 232. - -[185] Morgan _v._ Ravey, 30. L. J. Ex. 131. - -[186] Bernstein _v._ Sweeney, 33 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 271. - -[187] Imp. Stat., 26 and 27 Vict., chap. 41, sec. 1. A similar statute -is in force in Ontario, only the money is limited to forty dollars. (37 -Vict. O., chap 11, secs. 1-4.) - -[188] Statutes of 1855, chap. 421. - -[189] Wisconsin has a like law. (Laws of 1864, chap. 318.) - -[190] Spice _v._ Bacon, L. R. 2 Ex. Div. 463; 16 A. L. J. 385. - -[191] Remaly _v._ Leland, 43 N. Y. 538; Kellogg _v._ Sweeney, 1 Lans. -N. Y. 397. - -[192] Remaly _v._ Leland, _supra_. - -[193] Bernstein _v._ Sweeney, 35 N. Y. 271; Krohn _v._ Sweeney, 2 Daly, -N. Y. 200; Milford _v._ Wesley, 1 Wilson, (Ind.) 119. - -[194] Stewart _v._ Parsons, 24 Wis. 241. - -[195] Giles _v._ Libbey, 36 Bar. 70. - -[196] Rosenplanter _v._ Roessle, 54 N. Y. 262. - -[197] Rosenplanter _v._ Roessle, 54 N. Y. 262; Bendetson _v._ French, -46 N. Y. distinguished. - -[198] 11 Can. Law Jour. N. S. 103. - -[199] Pope _v._ Hall, 14 La. An. 324. - -[200] Hawkins _v._ Hoffman, 6 Hill, 586. - -[201] Macrow _v._ G. W. Rw. L. R. 6 Q. B. 622. - -[202] Wilkins _v._ Earle, 18 Abb. N. Y. 190. - -[203] Brooke _v._ Pickwick, 4 Bing. 218; McGill _v._ Rowand, 3 Penn. -St. 451. - -[204] Nevins _v._ Bay State S. B. Co. 4 Bosw. 589. - -[205] Jones _v._ Voorhes, 10 Ohio, 145; Miss. C. Rw. _v._ Kennedy, 41 -Miss. 471. - -[206] Bonner _v._ Maxwell, 9 Humphrey, 621. - -[207] McCormick _v._ Hudson River Rw. 4 E. D. Smith, 181. - -[208] Giles _v._ Fauntleroy, 13 Md. 126. - -[209] Brutz _v._ G. T. R. 32 U. C. Q. B. 66. - -[210] Re H. M. Wright, Newberry Admiralty; Sasseen _v._ Clark, 37 Ga. -242. - -[211] Toledo & Wabash Riv. _v._ Hammond, 33 Ind. 379. - -[212] Sasseen _v._ Clark, 37 Ga. 242. - -[213] Wood _v._ Devon, 13 Ill. 746. - -[214] Davis _v._ C. & S. Rw. 10 How. Pr. 330. - -[215] Giles _v._ Fauntleroy, 13 Md. 126. - -[216] Hudston _v._ Midland Rw. L. R. 4 Q. B. 366. - -[217] Hawkins _v._ Hoffman, 6 Hill, N. Y. Rep 589. - -[218] Gt. W. Rev. _v._ Shepherd, 8 Ex. 38. But see Bell _v._ Drew, 4 E. -D. Smith, 59. - -[219] Hopkins _v._ Westcott, 7 Am. Law. Reg. N. S. 533. - -[220] Mytton _v._ Midland Rw. 4 H. & N. 615. - -[221] Macrow _v._ Gt. W. Rw. L. R. 6 Q. B. 622, Cockburn, C. J. - -[222] Brutz _v._ G. T. Rw. 32 U. C. Q. B. 66. - -[223] Porter _v._ Hildebrand, 14 Pa. St. 129. - -[224] Brutz _v._ G. T. R. _supra_. - -[225] Gilox _v._ Shepherd, 8 Ex. 30; Pardee _v._ Drew, 25 Wend. 459; -Shaw _v._ G. T. Rw. 7 U. C. C. P. 493. - -[226] Belfast B. L. & C. Rw. _v._ Keys, 9 Ho. Lords Cas. 556; Hawkins -_v._ Hoffman, 6 Hill, 586. - -[227] Phelps _v._ London & N. W. Rw. 19 C. B. N. S. 321. - -[228] Ibid. - -[229] Giles _v._ Fauntleroy, 13 Md. 126. - -[230] Brutz _v._ G. T. Rw. _supra_. - -[231] Shoecraft _v._ Bailey, 25 Iowa, 553. - -[232] Weiseinger _v._ Taylor, 1 Bush, 275. - -[233] Maltby _v._ Chapman, 25 Md. 307; a decision under Md. Code, art. -70, secs. 5, 6. - -[234] Taylor _v._ Monnot, 4 Duer, (N. Y.) 116; Van Wyck _v._ Howard, 12 -How. (N. Y.) Pr. 147; Stanton _v._ Leland, 4 E. D. Smith, (N. Y.) 88; -Simon _v._ Miller, 7 La. An. 360. - -[235] Hyatt _v._ Taylor, 51 Barb. N. Y. 632; 42 N. Y. 259. - -[236] Wilkins _v._ Earle, 18 Abb. N. Y. 190. - -[237] Wilkins _v._ Earle, 44 N. Y. 172. - -[238] Story’s Commentaries, sec. 481. - -[239] Commentaries, sec. 470. - -[240] 1 Black. Com. 430. - -[241] Kent _v._ Shuckard, 2 B. & Ad. 803. - -[242] Per McCann, J., Wilkins _v._ Earle. - -[243] Orange Co. Bank _v._ Brown, 9 Wend. 85; Weed _v._ Saratoga & Sch. -Rw. 19 Wend. 524; Red. on Railways, vol. 2, pp. 55, 58. - -[244] Coggs _v._ Barnard, 1 Sm. Leading Cases, 309; Lane _v._ Cotton, -12 Mod. 487; Wharton on Innkeepers, 97. - -[245] Cole _v._ Goodwin, 19 Wend. - -[246] Quintin _v._ Courtney. Hay. (N. C.) 41. - -[247] Giles _v._ Libby, 36 Barb. 70. - -[248] Berkshire Woollen Co. _v._ Proctor, 7 Cush. 417. - -[249] Pinkerton _v._ Woodward, 33 Cal. 557. - -[250] Bendeton _v._ French, 44 Barb. 31. - -[251] Woodward _v._ Bird, 4 Bush. (Ky.) 510. - -[252] Houser _v._ Tulley, 62 Pa. St. 92. - -[253] Sneider _v._ Geiss, 1 Yeates, 24. - -[254] Rosenplanter _v._ Roessle, 54 N. Y. 262; Bendetson _v._ French, -46 N. Y. - -[255] Stanton _v._ Leland, 4 E. D. Smith, 88. - -[256] Wharton on Negligence, secs. 50, 730. - -[257] Wharton on Neg. sec. 732; Hood. _v._ Grimes, 13 B. Mon. 188. - -[258] Ritchey _v._ West, 23 Ill. 385. - -[259] Wharton on Negligence, secs. 437, 641. - -[260] Wharton on Negligence, sec. 731. - -[261] Jones on Bailments, 88. - -[262] Addison on Contracts, 415. - -[263] Wharton on Negligence, sec. 713. - -[264] Mitchum _v._ The State, 45 Ala. 29. - -[265] Merrill _v._ Claghorn, 23 Vt. 177; also Vance _v._ Throckmorton, -5 Bush. (Ky.) 41. - -[266] Dawson _v._ Chamney, 5 Q. B. (N. S.) 164. - -[267] Cutler _v._ Bonney, 30 Mich. 259. - -[268] Mateer _v._ Brown, 1 Cal. 225; Wharton on Neg. p. 111. - -[269] Hulett _v._ Swift, 33 N. Y. 571. - -[270] Faucett _v._ Nicholls, 64 N. Y. 377. - -[271] Mateer _v._ Brown, 1 Cal. 221. - -[272] Dale _v._ Hall, 1 Wils. 281. - -[273] Kay _v._ Wheeler, L. R. 2 C. P. 302. - -[274] Carstairs _v._ Taylor, Law R. 6 Ex. 217. - -[275] Carstairs _v._ Taylor, _supra_. - -[276] Ibid. per Bramwell, J. - -[277] McKome _v._ Word, 5 Car. & P. 1. - -[278] McDaniels _v._ Robinson, 26 Vt. 311; Morse _v._ Shee, 1 Vent. -190, 238. - -[279] Mateer _v._ Brown, 1 Cal. 221; Norcross _v._ Norcross, 53 Me. -163; Pinkerton _v._ Woodward, 33 Cal 557. - -[280] Mateer _v._ Brown, _supra_. See, also, Mason _v._ Thompson, 9 -Pick. 284. - -[281] Story on Bailments, sec. 17. - -[282] Rolfe, B. in Wilson _v._ Brett, 11 M. & W. 110; Austin _v._ -Manchester &c. Railway, 10 C. B. 474. - -[283] Fowler _v._ Dorlon, 24 Barb. 384. - -[284] Armistead _v._ White, 29 Law J. Q. B. 524. - -[285] Cashill _v._ Wright, 6 El. & B. 898. - -[286] Chamberlain _v._ Masterson, 26 Ala. 371; Hadley _v._ Upshaw, 27 -Tex. 547; Profiles _v._ Hall, 11 La. An. 324. - -[287] Kelsey _v._ Berry, 42 Ill. 469; Cayle’s Case, 8 Coke, 32. - -[288] 1 Andess. 29. - -[289] Bennett _v._ Mellor, 5 T. R. 273. - -[290] Erle, J., in Cashill _v._ Wright, 6 El. & B. 895. - -[291] Cayle’s Case, 8 Coke, 32. - -[292] Mitchell _v._ Woods, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 676; Filipourke _v._ -Merryweather, 2 Fost. & F. 285. - -[293] Spice _v._ Bacon, 16 Alb. L. J. 386. - -[294] Classen _v._ Leopold, 2 Sweeney, (N. Y.) 705. - -[295] Baddenberg _v._ Benner, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 84. - -[296] Burgess _v._ Clements, 4 Moore & S. 306. - -[297] Pettigrew _v._ Barnum, 11 Md. 434; Giles _v._ Fauntleroy, 13 Md. -126. - -[298] Burgess _v._ Clements, _supra_. - -[299] Per Montague Smith, J.; Oppenheim _v._ White Lion Hotel Co. L. R. -6 C. P. 515. - -[300] Cayle’s Case. - -[301] Oppenheim _v._ White Lion Hotel Co. _ante._ - -[302] Jones _v._ Tyler, 1 Ad. & E. 522. - -[303] Taunton, J., in Jones _v._ Tyler. - -[304] Piper _v._ Manny, 21 Wend. 283. - -[305] Story on Bailments, sec. 478. - -[306] Chute _v._ Wiggins, 14 Johnson, 175. - -[307] Parsons on Contracts, vol. 2, p. 169. - -[308] Dickenson _v._ Rodgers, 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 179. - -[309] Seymour _v._ Cook, 53 Barb. 451. - -[310] Metcalf _v._ Hess, 14 Ill. 129; Hill _v._ Owen, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) -323. - -[311] Thickstern _v._ Howard, 8 Blackf. 535. - -[312] Jordan _v._ Boone, 5 Rich. 528. - -[313] Washburn _v._ Jones, 14 Barb. 193. - -[314] Dawson _v._ Chamney, 52 B. 33. - -[315] Wharton on Innkeepers, p. 111; Matier _v._ Brown, 1 Cal. 221. - -[316] Cayle’s Case, 8 Rep. 32; Hawley _v._ Smith, 25 Wend. 642. - -[317] Story on Bailments, sec. 478. - -[318] Saunders _v._ Plummer, Orl. Bridg. 227. - -[319] Mason _v._ Thompson, 9 Pickering, 280. - -[320] Bennet _v._ Mellor, 5 T. R. 273. - -[321] Wintermute _v._ Clarke, 5 Sandf. 242; Smith _v._ Dearlove, 6 C. -B. 132. - -[322] Peel _v._ McGraw, 25 Wendell, 653; York _v._ Grindstone, 1 Salk. -388; Sturt _v._ Dromgold, 3 Bulst. 289. But see Grinnell _v._ Cook, 3 -Hills, N. Y. 686; Ingallsbee _v._ Wood, 33 N. Y. 577; 36 Barb. N. Y. -425; Nowers _v._ Fethers, 61 N. Y. 34; Healey _v._ Gray, 68 Me. 489. - -[323] Mason _v._ Thompson, _supra_. - -[324] Bacon’s Abr. Inns and Innkeepers, C. - -[325] Bacon, _supra_. - -[326] 21 Jac. I, chap. 21, sec. 2. - -[327] 1 Hawk. 225. - -[328] Cayle’s Case, 8 Rep. 32; Stammin _v._ Davis, 1 Salk. 404. - -[329] Rosse _v._ Bramstead, 2 Rol. Rep. 438; Bac. Abr. vol. 4, p. 411; -Parsons on Contracts, vol. 3, p. 250. But see Mulliner _v._ Florence, -L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 454. - -[330] Moss _v._ Townsend, 1 Bulstr. 207. But see Story on Bailments, -sec. 476. - -[331] Story on Bailments, sec. 476. - -[332] Allan _v._ Smith, 12 C. B., N. S. 638. - -[333] Jones _v._ Thurloe, 8 Mod. 172; Jones _v._ Pearle, 1 Strange, -556; Parsons on Contracts, vol. 3, p. 250. - -[334] Ross _v._ Bramstead, 2 Rol. Rep. 438. - -[335] York _v._ Grindstone, 2 Ld. Raym. 866. But see Fox _v._ McGregor, -11 Barb. (N. Y.) 41; Saint _v._ Smith, 1 Caldw. (Tenn.) 51. - -[336] Gilbert _v._ Berkeley, Skin. 648. And see Scarfe _v._ Morgan, 4 -M. & W. 270; and Somes _v._ B. Emp. Ell. Bl. & Ell. 353. - -[337] Westbrooke _v._ Griffith, Moor. 876; Jones _v._ Thurloe, 8 Mod. -172; Mulliner _v._ Florence, L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 489. - -[338] Westbrooke _v._ Griffith, _supra_. - -[339] Idem. - -[340] Jones _v._ Pearle, Str. 556; Thames I. W. Co. _v._ Pat. Derrick -Co. 1 Johns. & W. 97; 27 L. J. C. 714; Mulliner _v._ Florence, L. R. 3 -Q. B. D. 484. - -[341] Wharton on Innk. 122; Cross on Lien, 345 _n_. - -[342] Fox _v._ McGregor, 4 Barb. 41; Hickman _v._ Thomas, 16 Ala. 666; -Miller _v._ Marston, 85 Me. 153. - -[343] York _v._ Grenaugh, 2 Ld. Raym. 866; Robinson _v._ Walker, Pop. -127. - -[344] Turrill _v._ Crawley, 13 Ad. & E. (N. S.) 197; Manning _v._ -Hollenbeck. 27 Wis. 202. - -[345] See, also, Johnson _v._ Hill, 3 Stark. 172. - -[346] Wharton, p. 120; Stirt _v._ Drungold, 3 Bulst. 289. But see -Mulliner _v._ Florence, L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 484. - -[347] Burns _v._ Pigot, 9 C. & P. 208. - -[348] Grinnell _v._ Cook, 3 Hill, (N. Y.) 486. - -[349] Dixon _v._ Dalby, 9 U. C. Q. B. 79. - -[350] Grammell _v._ Schley, 41 Ga. 112. - -[351] Judson _v._ Etheridge, 1 C. & M. 743; Anderson _v._ Bell, 2 C. & -M. 304; Parsons on Contracts, vol. 3, p. 250. - -[352] Kinlock _v._ Craig, 3 L. R. 119; Taylor _v._ Robinson, 8 Taunt. -648; Jackson _v._ Cummins, 5 M. & W. 342. - -[353] Orchard _v._ Rackstraw, 9 C. B. 698; Hickman _v._ Thomas, 16 Ala. -666; Thickstein _v._ Howard, 8 Blackf. 535. - -[354] Mason _v._ Thompson, 9 Pick. 280. - -[355] Smith _v._ Dearlove, 6 C. B. 132. - -[356] Wallace _v._ Woodgate, 1 Ryan & M. 193. - -[357] Jacobs _v._ Latour, 2 M. & P. 20; 5 Bing. 130; Jackson _v._ -Cummins, 5 M. & W. 342; Harris _v._ Woodruff, 124 Mass. 205. - -[358] Sunbolf _v._ Alford, 3 M. & W. 254; Parsons on Contracts, vol. 3, -p. 250. - -[359] Ibid. - -[360] Bacon’s Abr. Inns. D. - -[361] Newton _v._ Trigg, 1 Shower, 269. - -[362] Sunbolf _v._ Alford, 3 Mees. & W. 248. - -[363] Mulliner _v._ Florence, L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 485. - -[364] Drope _v._ Thaire, Latch, 127; Grinstone _v._ Innkeeper, Hetl. -49; Pollock _v._ Landis, 36 Iowa, 651; Hursh _v_. Byers, 29 Mo. 469; -Ewart _v._ Stark, 8 Rich. (S. C.) 423. - -[365] Wintermute _v._ Clarke, 5 Sandf. 242. - -[366] Wharton, p. 123. - -[367] Berkshire Co. _v._ Proctor, 7 Cush. 417. - -[368] Trelfall _v._ Borwick, 41 Law J. Q. B. 266; affirmed, L. R. 10 Q. -B. (Exch.) 210. - -[369] Bennett _v._ Mellor, 5 T. R. 273. - -[370] Allen _v._ Smith, 12 Com. B. N. S. 638; Peet _v._ McGraw, 25 -Wend. 654. - -[371] Johnson _v._ Hill, 3 Stark. 172; Kent _v._ Shuckard, 2 Barn. & -Adol. 805. - -[372] Johnson _v._ Hill, _supra_. - -[373] Domestic Sewing Machine Co. _v._ Walters, 50 Ga. 573. - -[374] Broadwood _v._ Granara, 10 Ex. 423. See, also, Carlisle _v._ -Quattlebaum, 2 Bail. 452; Fox _v._ McGregor, 11 Barb. 41. - -[375] Cross on Lien, p. 30; Snead _v._ Watkins, 1 Com. B. N. S. 267. - -[376] Byall _v._ ----, Atk. 165. See, also, Chapter VII. - -[377] Manning _v._ Hollenbeck, 27 Wis. 202. - -[378] Dicas _v._ Stockley, 7 Car. & P. 587; Bristol _v._ Wilsmore, 1 -Barn. & C. 514. - -[379] Ratcliff _v._ Davies, Cro. Jac. 244. - -[380] Gordon _v._ Cox, 7 Car. & P. 172. - -[381] Per Willes J., Allen _v._ Smith, 12 Com. B. N. S. 644. - -[382] Owen _v._ Knight, 5 Scott, 307. - -[383] Hodgson _v._ Loy, 7 T. R. 660. - -[384] Horncastle _v._ Farran, 2 Barn. & Ald. 497. - -[385] Case _v._ Fogg, 46 Mo. 66; Thames Iron W. Co. _v._ Patent Derrick -Co. 1 Johns. & W. 97; Mulliner _v._ Florence L. R. 3 Q. B. 484. - -[386] Proctor _v._ Nicholson, 7 Car. & P. 67. - -[387] Watson _v._ Cross, 2 Duv. (Ken.) 147. - -[388] Somes _v._ British Emp. Sh. Co. 8 H. L. Cas. 338; El. B. & E. -353. But see, in cases of horses, p. 129. - -[389] Clayton _v._ Butterfield, 10 Rich. 423. - -[390] Dansey _v._ Richardson, 3 El. & Bl. 144. - -[391] Holder _v._ Soulby, 8 C. B. N. S. 254. - -[392] Idem--Earle, C. J. - -[393] Manning _v._ Wells, 9 Humph. 746. - -[394] Johnson _v._ Reynolds, 3 Ken. 257. See, also, Chamberlain _v._ -Masterson, 26 Ala. 371. - -[395] Smith _v._ Reed, 6 Daly, 33. - -[396] Soltan _v._ De Held, 2 Sim. N. S. 133. - -[397] State _v._ Linkham, 69 N. C. 214. - -[398] State _v._ Hughes, 72 N. C. 25. - -[399] State _v._ Powell, 70 N. C. 67. - -[400] Newton _v._ Harland, 1 M. & G. 644. - -[401] De Witt _v._ Pierson, 112 Mass 8. - -[402] Dansey _v._ Richardson, 3 El. & B. 144. - -[403] Cady _v._ McDowell, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 484. - -[404] Pinkerton _v._ Woodward, 33 Cal. 557. - -[405] Thompson _v._ Lacy, 3 Barn. & Adol. 283. - -[406] Willard _v._ Reinhardt, 2 E. D. Smith, 148. - -[407] Wharton on Innkeepers, 123. - -[408] Benner _v._ Welburn, 7 Ga. 296, 307; Southwood _v._ Myers, 3 -Bush, 681. - -[409] Stewart _v._ McCready, 24 How. Pr. 62; Jones _v._ Merrill, 42 -Barb. 623; Cross _v._ Wilkins, 43 N. H. 332; Nichols _v._ Holliday, 29 -Wis. 406. - -[410] Brooks _v._ Harrison, 41 Conn. 184. - -[411] Wright _v._ Stewart, 29 Law J. Q. B. 161. - -[412] 2 and 3 Edw. VI, chap. 19. - -[413] 5 Eliz. chap. 5, sec. 15. - -[414] Woodfall, Landlord and Tenant. But see Wright _v._ Stewart, 6 -Jur. N. S. 867. - -[415] Woodfall, Landlord and Tenant. But see Wright _v._ Stewart, 6 -Jur. N. S. 867. - -[416] Parsons on Contracts, vol. 1, p. 517. - -[417] Baynes _v._ Smith, 1 Esp. 206. - -[418] Bisset _v._ Caldwell, 1 Esp. 206, n. - -[419] Woodfall, Landlord and Tenant, 384. - -[420] Parsons on Contracts, vol. 1, p. 518. - -[421] Archer _v._ Wetherell, 4 Hill (N. Y.) 112. - -[422] 34 and 35 Vict. chap. 79; Phillips _v._ Henson, L. R. 3 C. P. D. -26. - -[423] Hunter _v._ Hunt, 1 Com. B. 300. - -[424] Mechelen _v._ Wallace, 7 Ad. & E. 49; Vaughan _v._ Hancock, 3 -Com. B. 766. - -[425] Ross _v._ Fedden, 7 Q. B. 661. - -[426] Culverwell _v._ Lockington, 24 C. P. (Ont. 611.) - -[427] Jaffe _v._ Harteau, 56 N. Y. 398. - -[428] Kimmell _v._ Burfiend, 2 Daly (N. Y.), 155. - -[429] Carstairs _v._ Taylor, L. R. 6 Ex. 223. - -[430] Stapenhurst _v._ Am. Man. Co. 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. 355; Simonton -_v._ Loring, 68 Me. 164. - -[431] Arden _v._ Pullen, 10 Mees. & W. 321; Keates _v._ Cadogan, 10 C. -B. 591; Gott _v._ Gandy, 2 El. & B. 845; Wiltz _v._ Matthews, 52 N. Y. -512; Taffe _v._ Harteau, 56 N. Y. 398. - -[432] Scott _v._ Simons, 54 N. H. 426. - -[433] Clancy _v._ Byrne, 56 N. Y. 129. - -[434] Izon _v._ Gorton, 5 Bing. N. C. 501; 7 Scott, 537. - -[435] Surplice _v._ Farnsworth, 7 M. & G. 576. - -[436] Maclennan _v._ Royal Ins. Co. 39 Q. B. (Ont.) 515. - -[437] Underwood _v._ Burrows, 7 Car. &. P. 26. - -[438] Idem. - -[439] Smith _v._ Marrable, 11 Mees. & W. 5; Add. on Con. 375-6. - -[440] Hart _v._ Windsor, 11 Mees. & W. 68; Sutton _v._ Temple, Ibid. -57; Searle _v._ Laverick, Law R. 9 Q. B. 131; McGlasham _v._ Tallmadge, -37 Barb. 313. - -[441] Hart _v._ Windsor, _supra_. - -[442] Wilson _v._ Finch Hatton, L. R. 2 Ex. D. 343. - -[443] Dutton _v._ Gerrish, 63 Mass. 94. - -[444] Sutton _v._ Temple, _supra_. - -[445] Westlake _v._ De Graw, 25 Wend. 669. - -[446] Wilson _v._ Finch Hatton, L. R. 2 Ex. D. 336. - -[447] Smith _v._ Marrable, 11 Mees. & W. 5. - -[448] Minor _v._ Sharon, 112 Mass. 477. - -[449] Add. on Contracts, 377. - -[450] Izon _v._ Gorton, 5 Bing. N. C. 501; 7 Scott, 537; Parker _v._ -Gibbons, 1 Q. B. 421; Fowler _v._ Payne, 49 Miss. 32. - -[451] Newman _v._ Anderton, 2 Bos. & P. N. R. 224; Cadogan _v._ Kennet, -Cowp. 432. - -[452] Ibid. - -[453] Newman _v._ Anderton, _supra_. - -[454] Ernot _v._ Cole, Dyer, 212b; Cadogan _v._ Kennet, _supra_. But -see Salmon _v._ Matthews, 8 Mees. & W. 827. - -[455] Parry _v._ Hazell, 1 Esp. 64; Peacock _v._ Raffan, 6 Esp. 4; Doe -_v._ Bayley, 6 East, 121; Woodfall, 8 Ed. 176. - -[456] Huffell _v._ Armstead, 7 Car. & P. 56; Peacock _v._ Raffan, 6 -Esp. 4; Towne _v._ Campbell, 3 Com. B. 94. - -[457] People _v._ Giolet, 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 130. - -[458] Jones _v._ Mills, 10 Com. B. N. S. 788. - -[459] Finlayson _v._ Bayley, 5 Car. & P. 67. - -[460] Huffell _v._ Armistead, 7 Car. & P. 56. - -[461] Walls _v._ Atcheson, 3 Bing. 462. - -[462] Griffith _v._ Hodges, 2 Car. & P. 419. - -[463] Bethett _v._ Blencome, 3 M. & G. 119. - -[464] Ricket _v._ Tullick, 6 Car. & P. 66. - -[465] Doupe _v._ Genin, 45 N. Y. 119. - -[466] Lane _v._ Dixon, 3 M. G. & S. 776. - -[467] Hartley _v._ Bloxham, 3 Q. B. 701. - -[468] Lane _v._ Dixon, _supra_, per Cresswell, J. - -[469] Nowlan _v._ Nevor, 2 Sweeny, (N. Y.) 67. - -[470] Pool _v._ Higinson, 18 Alb. L. J. 82. - -[471] Mellish, L. J. L. R. 8 Ch. 471. - - - - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LAW OF HOTEL LIFE *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |