CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF GUEST The Legislature has passed two acts for the protection of inn-keepers, making it a crime to defraud them out of the price of accommodations furnished. The first was in 1867, and is found in chapter 677 of the session laws for that year. It provided as follows: "Every person who shall, at any hotel or inn, order and receive, or cause to be furnished, any food or accommodation, with intent to defraud the owner or proprietor of such hotel or inn out of the value or price of such food or accommodation; and every person who shall obtain credit at any hotel or inn by the use of any false pretense or device, or by depositing at such hotel or inn any baggage or property of value less than the amount of such credit, or of the bill by such person incurred; and any person who, after obtaining credit or accommodation at any hotel or inn, shall abscond from such hotel or inn, and shall surreptitiously remove his baggage or property therefrom shall, upon conviction, be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor." This statute has been abrogated by the provisions of the New York Penal Code, which are given below. Section 382 of the Penal Code as amended by chapter 645, of the laws of 1886, now reads as follows: "A person who obtains any food or accommodation at an inn or boarding-house, without paying therefor, with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof, or who obtains credit at an inn or boarding-house, by the use of any false pretense, or who, after obtaining credit or accommodation at an inn or CONVERSION—DEDUCTIONS. 89 boarding-house, absconds and surreptitiously removes his baggage therefrom, without paying for his food and accommodation, is guilty of a misdemeanor." As originally enacted this section did not include boarding-house keepers; the amendment of 1886 enlarged the scope of the act, so as to include boardinghouse keepers as well as the proprietors of inns. CONVERSION OF GUEST'S GOODS. In an action of trover against a landlord it was held that in order to maintain it an actual conversion of the property must be shown, and that a demand and refusal are not sufficient when the defendant has not at the time possession and control of the goods.' It seems that the ground of action against an innkeeper for the loss of goods is his negligence and therefore wrongful conduct, rather than failure to perform a contract. Trover will not lie against an innkeeper without an actual conversion of the goods entrusted to his care.3 ALLOWING DEDUCTIONS FOR ABSENCE. It was held recently in the First Department of this State that in an action upon account for board and lodging, it is not competent to meet evidence on the part of the defendant tending to show an express contract between the inn-keeper and boarder that absences should be deducted from the charges for board, by proof that it is the custom of hotels not to allow any such deductions. The Judge who delivered the I, Hallenbeck vs. Fish, 8 Wendell, 547; 2, See People vs. Willett, 26 Barb., 81, s. c. 6 Abb. Pr., 3, 40; Wilkins vs. Earl, 44 N. Y., 188; Needeles vs. Howard, opinion of the court stated as a reason for this doctrine that the claim of defendant, as well as his right to the deduction stood on the alleged express agreement; and such agreement, if made, could neither be disposed of nor be altered by the proof of custom.' In case there was no express agreement between the parties the evidence of general custom would doubtless be admissible. NO RECOVERY FOR LIQUOR TRUSTED. No inn, tavern or hotel keeper, who shall trust any person other than those who may be lodgers in his house, for any sort of strong or spirituous liquors or wines, shall be capable of recovering the same by any suit. All securities given for such debts shall be void; and the inn, tavern or hotel keeper taking such securities, with intent to evade this provision, shall forfeit double the sum intended to be secured thereby. I, Stebbins vs. Brown, 65 Barber, 274; 2. N. Y. Revised Statutes, Vol. 3, p. 1981: THE INN-KEEPER'S LIABILITY. 91 CHAPTER IV. THE INN-KEEPER'S LIABILITY. The inn-keeper, occupying as he does a public position, has been subject to a very stringent, unyielding rule of liability for the property of his guest. By the rules of the common law he is liable, not only for the property of his guest which is lost by his fault, or negligence, but for any loss that may occur while such property is infra hospitum and while the owner of it is a guest at the inn. The policy of the law has been to render him liable to the same extent as a common carrier of goods for hire, and although a shade of doubt as to this extraordinary responsibility has been cast upon the subject by some text writers and judges, yet, the prevailing doctrine, from the time of Cayle's case down to the present, has been to regard the keeper of a common inn as an insurer of the baggage and effects of all guests. This is founded on sound principles of public policy and is intended to facilitate commerce, as it increases the confidence of travelers who occupy the hostelry for a temporary home The act of God, the invasion and attack of public enemies, or the carelessness of the guest himself may relieve the inn-keeper from his responsibility, but nothing else will avail him as a plea, if his guest's property be lost or injured. The law requires of him extraordinary diligence in looking after his guest's baggage and effects, and only shifts the responsibility when the guest himself has been grossly negligent. THE RULE NOT RELAXED. It does not seem to be the disposition of the courts at the present time to relax the common law liability of the inn-keeper, except when the Statute has done so. A Western judge says: "We are not I disposed to relax the rules of liability applicable to inn-keepers." "The character of our hotel-keepers of the present day in localities where gentlemen and ladies resort who can afford to pay liberal prices for their entertainment, is above any suspicion of complicity with their servants or others to betray the confidence of their guests. The rule of public policy does not, however, admit of any just relaxation. Robbery and theft still occur, from the depravity of servants, even at the most fashionable and first-class hotels. The rule must be uniform for all classes of hotels." In New York State the liability is somewhat modified by statutory provisions, as we shall have occasion to observe.3 THE REASON FOR A SEVERE RULE. The inn-keeper may complain of the severity of the rule, but the courts have held that it was founded upon considerations of reason and justice, and have generally maintained it with its full rigor. "This rule was established in a period when theft and robbery were quite frequent, and inn-keepers were thought to have many opportunities and some temptations to I, Fuller vs. Coots, 18 Ohio St., 343, 350; 2, Wilkins vs. Earl, 44 N. Y., 172; 3. See Laws of 1883, Chapter 227; 3, |