the public room, where he would be a caller or special customer.' In a recent case in the Third Department of this State, defendant, who kept a hotel, issued invitations to a "Fourth of July party," to be held at his house. Defendant provided music, a supper, and stabling for horses for the sum of two dollars. Plaintiff, who received one of these cards, went to defendant's hotel, on the night of the dance, with a horse and buggy, which he put in a barn defendant had engaged for this occasion, under the direction of defendant's servant. Plaintiff attended the ball, had supper and paid his bill, also drinking at the hotel. The horse was injured and the court held that the relation of inn-keeper and guest did not exist; that plaintiff came on invitation of the defendant, not as to an inn, but to attend a ball; that he was not a traveler, and would have had no right to come there had he not been invited; that the purchasing of liquor, while under some circumstances it might be sufficient to create the relation of host and guest, only shows that it is not the amount of refreshments purchased, but the character under which the purchaser buys them which determines the relation. The purchasing of liquor is sufficient to constitute the relation of host and guest.3 USING INN FOR IMMORAL PURPOSES. If a person desire to make use of an inn for other I, Schouler on Bailments, 255, citing 35 Conn., 183, and 2, 3, C. 5; Fitch vs. Casler, 17 Hun, 126; McDonald vs. Edgerton, 5 Barb., 560; Bennett VS. purposes than that of a temporary abiding place, or for illegal or immoral purposes, it seems that he will not be entitled to protection as a guest of the innkeeper, and so, the furnishing of a prostitute with board and lodgings has been held to be an immoral contract.1 In a Wisconsin case it appeared that the plaintiff who lived in the same town with and very near the defendant's hotel, went there at midnight with a disreputable woman, registered as man and wife, and was assigned a room. At the same time he delivered the clerk some money for safe keeping. The clerk absconded with the money and the court held that the plaintiff could not recover the amount from the innkeeper, as he was not a guest.2 In the opinion of Cole, C. J., he said: "The material, perhaps necessary inference from the plaintiff's own testimony is that he went to the defendant's hotel at midnight with a prostitute and engaged a room solely for the purpose of having intercourse with the woman. True,. he says that he went to the hotel as a guest and asked the clerk if he could stay there for bed and breakfast. But, he lived near by, gave no reason why he did not go to his usual lodging place, therefore we feel justified in assuming he went to the hotel for the unlawful purpose above indicated. While the definition of guest has been somewhat extended from its original meaning, it does not include every one who goes to an inn for convenience to accomplish some purpose. If a man and woman go together or meet I, Mackabee vs. Griffith, 2 Cranch, C. C., 336; compare with 2, Curtis vs. Murphy, 63 Wisconsin, 4; 53 Am. Rep., 242. by concert at an inn or hotel in the town or city where they reside, and take a room for no other purpose than to have illicit intercourse, can it be that the law protects them as guests? Is the extraordinary rule of liability which was originally adopted from considerations of public policy to protect travelers and wayfarers not merely from the negligence but the dishonesty of inn-keepers and their servants, to be extended to such persons? If so, then for a like purpose it should protect a thief who takes a room at an inn and improves the opportunity thus given to enter the rooms and steal the goods of guests and boarders. We do not think that the relation of inn-keeper and guest can or does arise in the cases supposed. One whose status is a guest, is a traveler, or transient comer, who puts up at an inn for a lawful purpose, to receive its customary lodging and entertainment." GUEST MUST TAKE UP HIS ABODE AT INN. The traveler must have actually taken up his temporary abode at the inn before the relation of innkeeper and guest, with its attendant responsibilities and duties, can be created. This principle was illustrated in a case where the plaintiff arrived at Toronto from Ireland and drove from the railway depot to the hotel of the defendant, having a portmanteau. He asked for a room, saying he only wanted to change his clothes and go to see his friends, and had his things taken to the room; after occupying it for about an hour he went to his friends, with whom he remained. It was hell that he was not a guest at the inn.1 1, Lynor vs. Massop, 36 Q. B., U. C., 230; 2 Cockburg, J., says: "Of course a man could not be said to be a traveler who goes to a place merely for the purpose of taking refreshment. But if he goes to an inn for refreshment in the course of a journey, whether of business or of pleasure, he is entitled to demand refreshment and the inn-keeper is justified in supplying it." If a traveler have no personal entertainment at an inn, but simply care and food for his horse, he may be a guest, for he makes the inn his temporary abode, his home for the time being. The plaintiff having accepted an invitation to dine with his uncle, a guest at defendant's inn, went there, and not finding his uncle, entered the dining room, ordered and took dinner. When he came out he went with his uncle to another dining room in the hotel and took dinner with him there. On going into this latter room he left his coat upon a rack outside, and when he came out it could not be found and was never recovered. It was held that the landlord was not liable for the loss and that the relation of inn-keeper and guest did not exist between the parties. This case does not seem to be entirely in harmony with one arising in Minnesota, where it was held that a person who visits a boarder at an inn is a guest and the innkeeper is liable to him for the loss of any of his goods, though not of those of the boarder whom he is visiting. But the circumstances of the two cases were widely different, as in the latter case the visitor made a protracted stay of several weeks. 1, Atkinson vs. Sellers, 5 C. B. (N. S.), 442; 2, Ingalsbee vs. Wood, 36 Barb., 452; Coykendall vs. Eaton, 55 Barb., 188; Gastenhofer vs. Clair, 10 Daly, 265; In a case recently arising in Ohio it appeared that the keeper of a gambling-house closed his night's business at 2 o'clock A. M., having a sum of money upon his person, and not being ready to retire for the night, and not wishing to carry his money upon his person at that time of the night, visited an inn for the purpose of depositing his money for safe keeping; he found the inn in charge of a night clerk, inquired if he could have lodgings for the night, and was told that he could; he stated that he did not desire to go to his room at that time, but wished to leave some money with the clerk, and would return in about half an hour. The clerk told him he would reserve a good room for him. He did not register his name, nor was it upon any book of the inn. No room was assigned to him.. He left his package of money with the clerk, received a check for it and departed. He returned in about three hours to have a room assigned to him and retire for the balance of the morning. The clerk had absconded with the money, and it was held that the person who made the deposit was not a guest of the hotel at the time he deposited his money with the clerk and that the inn-keeper was not liable for its loss.1 In a leading English case the following opinions were given, the plaintiff having suffered a nonsuit in the court below: LORD COLERIDGE, J.-This rule must be discharged. The facts according to my view of them are that the plaintiff stopped at Carlisle station and having the intention of remaining the night at defendant's hotel, gave the luggage to the hotel porter to take to the hotel. When he arrived at the 1, Arcade Hotel Co. vs. Wiatt, 2 Western Rep., 368; |