NEGLIGENCE OF GUEST. 83 inn-keeper shall not be charged; for then the fault is in the guest to have such a companion or servant, which shews that for such damage as is occasioned by the misconduct of the guest, he should not be entitled to complain, or to have any recompense. Now what is the conduct of the plaintiff in this case, the innkeeper not being bound to find him in any more than lodging, and a convenient room for refreshment? This does not satisfy his object, but he enquires for a third room, for the purpose of exposing in it his wares to view, and of introducing a number of persons, over whom the inn-keeper can have no check or control; and thus, as it seems to me, for a purpose wholly alien from the ordinary purpose of an inn, which is ad hospitandos homines. Therefore, the care of these goods hardly falls within the limits of the defendant's duty as inn-keeper. Besides, after the circumstances relating to the stranger took place, which might well have awakened the plaintiff's suspicion, it became his duty, in whatever room he might be, to use at least ordinary diligence; and particularly so, as he was occupying a chamber for a special purpose. For, in general, though a traveler who resorts to an inn, may rest on the protection which the law casts around him, yet, if circumstances of suspicion arise, he must exercise ordinary care. It seems to me, that this room was not trusted to the plaintiff in the ordinary character of a guest frequenting an inn, but that he must be understood as having taken a special charge of it; and that he was bound to use ordinary care for the safe keeping of his goods; and that it is owing to his neglect, and not to the fault of the inn-keeper, that the loss has happened. And this was a question which it was proper to leave to the jury." In the same case Le Blanc, J., also said: "There can be no doubt as to the liability of the inn-keeper to look to the safe-keeping of every person's goods, who comes to his inn as his guest, and negligence will be imputed to him when the loss is not to be ascribed to any other known cause. It seems to me that this is consistent with Cayle's case, and the other cases; for the place to which that principle was applied is not a room which the guest has selected for some particular purposes, but the chamber in which he is lodged as a guest; and then it is certainly true, that the inn-keeper is not excused in saying that he delivered the key to the guest, and that he left the chamber door open. This may well be, and yet in this case where the guest applied for the room for a different purpose from that of being lodged there or entertained, the inn-keeper may not be responsible. I think, therefore, the jury were justified in determining that he received the favor, cum onere,—that is, that he accepted the chamber to shew his goods in, upon condition of taking them under his own care." Bayley, J., agreed that the verdict was right and that any other would have been wrong, "inasmuch as the plaintiff has by his own conduct superseded, for a time, the obligation of the inn-keeper.-After a person has specially taken his property into his own care, it is but reasonable, if he means to charge the inn-keeper upon his responsibility, that he should apprize him of it. This, then, is the case of a person at an inn, who requests a chamber for a special purpose, which request is granted, upon a condition to which he must be taken to have assented; he removes into the room with his property, which he has taken UNCLAIMED BAGGAGE. 85 under his own custody, and afterwards leaves the room unprotected, and without making any communication to the inn-keeper which might have put him on his guard as to the protection of it. To hold in such a case that the defendant is liable, would be to make him liable, not for his own negligence, but for the negligence of his guest; for grosser negligence can hardly be stated, and it would be to enable the plaintiff to take advantage of his own negligence which has been the sole cause of the loss." 1 I Where a guest at an inn takes his goods from his room into his personal custody and puts them into a place in the inn not designated by the inn-keeper and without his knowledge, and such place is an unusual one, and manifestly hazardous and improper, and they are lost thereby, the inn-keeper is exonerated.' UNCLAIMED BAGGAGE AT THE INN. The landlord's duty as to unclaimed baggage and property at an inn is declared by Statute (Laws 1837, Chapter 300) as follows: SECTION 1. The proprietor or proprietors of the several lines of stages, and the proprietors of the several canal boat lines, and the proprietors of the several steamboats, and the several incorporated railroad companies, and the keepers of the several inns and taverns within this State, who shall have any unclaimed trunks, boxes or baggage within his, their or either of their custody, shall immediately enter the time the same was left, with a proper description thereof, in a book to be by them provided and kept 1, See Dumbier vs. Day, 12 Nebraska, 596; 41 Am. Rep., 2, 772; Fuller vs. Coots, 18 Ohio St., 343; see Swan vs. Smith, 3 for that purpose. In case the name and residence of the owner shall be ascertained, it shall be the duty of such person who shall have any such property as above specified, to immediately notify the owner thereof by mail. § 2. In case there shall not be any information obtained as to the owner, it shall be the duty of the person having possession thereof, to make out a correct written description of all such property as shall have been unclaimed for thirty days, stating the time the same came into his possession, and forward said description to the editor of the State paper, whose duty it shall be, on the first Mondays of July, October, January and April in each year, to publish the same in the State paper once a week for three weeks successively. (See Chapter 133, Laws 1884.) § 3. In case the said property shall remain unclaimed for sixty days after the said publication, it shall be the duty of the person or company having possession thereof, to apply to a magistrate of the town or city in which said property is retained, in whose presence and under whose direction said property shall be opened or examined, and an inventory thereof taken by said magistrate; and if the name and residence of the owner is ascertained by such examination, it shall be the duty of the magistrate forthwith to direct a notice thereof to such owner by mail; and if said property shall remain unclaimed for three months after such examination, it shall be the further duty of the person or company having possession thereof to apply to a magistrate as aforesaid; and if said magistrate shall deem such property of sufficient value, he shall cause the same to be sold at public UNCLAIMED BAGGAGE. 87 auction, giving six days' previous notice of the time and place of such sale; and from the proceeds of such sale he shall pay the charges and expenses legally incurred in respect to said property, or a ratable proportion thereof to each claimant, if insufficient for the payment of the whole amount; and the balance of the proceeds of such sale, if any, the said magistrate shall immediately pay to the overseers of the poor of said town or city, for the use of the poor thereof; and the said overseers shall make an entry of such amount, and the time of receiving the same, upon their official records, and it shall be subject, at any time within seven years thereafter, to be reclaimed by and refunded to the owner of such property, his heirs or assigns, on satisfactory proof of such ownership. 4. The person making the entry of unclaimed property as above specified, shall be entitled to twelve and a-half cents for each trunk, box, bale, package or bundle so entered, and shall have a lien on the property so entered, until payment shall be made; and in case any additional expense shall be incurred for printing, the lien shall continue until payment shall be made for such additional expense. 5. In case any person shall neglect or refuse to comply with the provisions of this act, he shall forfeit the sum of five dollars for each and every trunk, box or bundle of baggage so neglected as above specified, to the benefit of any person who shall sue for the same, in his own name, in an action of debt in any court having cognizance thereof." I, N. Y. Revised Statutes, Vol. 3, p. 2261; |