The Sun.
London, England, 1831-11-03 00:00:00

COURT CIRCULAR.

His MAJESTY, attended by Sir HERBERT TAYLOR,
arrived at his Palace, at St. James's,. about half-past one
o'clock yesterday afternoon, from the Pavilion at Brighton.
At three o'clock the KING held a Court, which was at-
tended by the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, the First Lord
of the Treasury, the Secretaries of State for the Home,
Foreign, and Colonial Departments, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, the President of the Board of Controul, the
First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for
Ireland, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the Duke of RICHMOND,
and the Lord Steward.

His MAJESTY held a Privy Council, when a proclaim-
tion was ordered to be issued offering a reward of 1,000/.
for the apprehension of any of the iingleaders concerned in
the disturbances at Bristol, Nottingham, &c.
A form of prayer was approved of relating to the cholera
morbus.

The Hon. WILLIAM BATHURST attended as clerk of the
Council.

His MAJEsnr gave audiences to the Archbishop of
CANTERBURY,EarI CREY,ViCOnnt MELBOURNE, Viscount
PALMERSTON, Marquis WELLESLEY, and Sir JAMES
GitAizAm. Lord BYRON was the Lord in Waiting.
The KING 1.-{t town at ten minutes past five o'clock on
his return to Brighton. •

After attending the King's Court the Cabinet Ministers
adjourned to the residence of Earl GREY in Downing-
street, and held a Cabinet Council.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was in attendance on the
Ministers.

His Highness Prince FREDERICK of Wurtemberg, at-
tended by Count LIPPE, arrived at the Clarendon yester-
day, from Poi tsmouth.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 2.

LIABILITY OF INNKEEPERS, &e.
KENT V. SCHUKARM

Mr. ANDREWS moved for a rn!e to show cause why
the verdict in this case should not he set aside, and a new
trial had.

It was an action brought against Mr. Schukard, who
has kept the Old Ship at Brighton many years, to recover
money lost in a lady's reticule. The cause was tried at
Lewes before Mr. Justice Gizelee, and a verdict found for
the plaintiff. It appeared in evidence that the wife of
the plaintiff, accompanied by a female attendant, took a
sitting-room and a bed-chamber in the house of the de-
fendant. They went out for a walk, and Mrs. Kent on
her return, threw her reticule, containing Bank-notes,
upon the bed in the chamber. She soon after heard the
footstep of Mr. Kent, and left the bed room to meet him.
Returning again for the reticule, she:found it was gone. It
was proved that she had the reticule with Bank-notes,
when she came to the defendant's house, and the Jury gave
a verdict for 501. It was contended that the innkeeper
could not be liable in such a case, inasmuch as the money
was never submitted to his care. It was said to be as
much under Mrs. Kent's care, as if it had been in her own
house, an l Mr. Andrews contended that it would be the
hardest case in the world, to .make the defendant respon-
slble. No notice had been given that the money required
his care.

Lord TENTERDEN-You will not find in any one case
that it was necessary to give notice. Suppose a lady had
run into her bed-chamber, taken her purse out of her
pocket, left it on the table, and it had been stolen, would
not the innkeeper have ken liable?

Mr. ANDREWS then adverted to the summing up of Mr.
Justice Gdz lee. That leatned Judge said no possible
blame could attach to the defendant, but the question was
whether this money had been stolen out of the inn ? It
the Jury should decide that it had been stolen, the de-
fendant would be liabie. The Learned Counsel sub-
mittel that the qaestion the Learned Judge should have
put, was wbAtier the money was in the rare of the defen-
dant or Mrs. Kent? In the case where a persota had a key
given hint to lock his door, the landlord could not be liable.
Mr. Justice PARK E—There the person is not used at
the inn as a guest.
Mr. ANDREWS—If this verdict can stand, it will lead
to much mischief. The innkeeper cannot possibly prevent
such a has.
Lord TENTERDEN —The object the law has in view is,
that the intikeeper shall know who he has in his house. I
think, however, in the present state of society it is not
easy to know many of those who arrive at inns.
Mr. ANDREWS—It is impossible.
Lord TENTERDEN—In many cases he cannot possibly
have any knowledge of the goods they have with them,
but he is liable for all goods in his house.
Mr. ANDaEws—But if a person takes money to his
roam in an inn, without letting an innkeeper know, there
can be no responsibility.
Lord TENTERDEN—Suppose there is money in a
trunk, and that trunk is stolen, the innkeeper would be
answerable. _ .

Mr. Aivris.Ews—ln this case the lady lost money. Now,
there is no ease in which an innkeeper is liable for the loss of
money. All the cases relate to goods which travellers carried
with them. If the defendant is liable for the loss of this
sum, he may he liable for any suin. The innkeeper never
can know what. he is shout. He should know the duty
he has to discharge. How can an innkeeper, in such a
case, exercise any discretion? I have looked through cases
but find none like thiti—it is new. An innkeeper is
placed in a situation of difficulty. There may be instances
in which innkeepers, by stratagem, will be cmstantly de-
frauded. Ido riot say that this is the case with respect
to the plaintiff, but I submit this verdict should not stand.
Lord TENTERDE2I —I think there have been many cases
in which money and goods have been recovered from corn-