The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-01-31

berry 10 rebuff this II was shown By the evidence Of
and Goes not spssi or read ss Enssa
he has but just commenced his mglsh studies. This
notice was not one Of which the plaintiff vas bound 70
bound to bring directly home to his observation and
dsrssndng, they wished 70 avoid the obligstons I'M
keepers notice. efore In Raglish is NO notice 70
. Frenehmsn ignorant Of our language. The notice
the shield Of the law has for many generations been
thrown around him. guarding by iron rules his property
but for the % o. sas most ana care should Be
fully understood BY every traveller whom he aecommo
dates. Indeed it is a matter Of great surprise that
n.vs aih e public in the New @ord the propris
tors of spacious hotels are not re careful In
this respect, and print their notices in the
rous languages and in such clear and explicit terms,
unmixed with any sxtraneous nst'srs Is 70 os easily
hello may Inst blush har and oppressive, but
when Is considered that the traveller is among stran
gers at the mercy Of servants Of whose honesty ne is
profits BY his custom should be liable for all losses
tanned the guest under mis- roof without the sufferer
put 70 a. 20 s nas
duced. Chief Justice Holt, in deive ring his celebrated
Judgment in Coggi vs. Bernard Lord Raym, els said:
FOLEY OF the law the safety OF all persons, the
sty Of wbo-e affairs oblige them these sorts Of
persons that they may be safe In their ways OF deal
Ing" 1t is comparatively lately that the rigid rules IN
this respect have been SO much as that innkeep.
sotice 40 broushi to the knowere Of party that he
at least constructvey, under It; and parties who
seek avail thems.ves Of this relaxation be care
full that they bring themselves within the principles
which govern IL II is also claimed that the defendants
liable, because the money received by
the plaintiff after he took board at the hotel L
cannot conceive how this principle apply. III
II be true in respect 70 money received alter he
became a guest, then the rule would apply to
any sdditiolsl article u WARDROBE he mignt sub
ssqueny purchase The policy OF the law il to pro-
tect all the property owned by the guest and in his pos
session in the hotel whether acquired before after
he became guest Upon the poiot that the amount Of
money lost excessive for travel ng expenses AMI
thR therefore the defendants not liable it Is shown
that the plaintiff came here q voyage of curiosity
pleasure and information that his passage from France
New York PAID and that he was TO continue his
travels from this city. l cannot. therefore, find
question Of fact that $500 extravagant amount
be allowed for such purposes. In short the plaintiff
guest Of the deiendans he had in his possession
in bis the I'D OF september last $500 IN gold OF
which he was robbed by some person or persons
known and the notice, by hich the defendants claim
to be discharged frt all liability, has not been brought
to the plaintiff snowlecg e m such way to
that object. No N ggsnce or msma agement in
Quoting the house IL proven On the contrary, IL ap
pears that active and highly intelligent officer had
general supervision Vi the hotel and that watch under
his direction kept each floor but that in spite
OF this vigilance the robbery effected Neg-
gence need not be proved uaSe the defendants re-
spnsble the law regaT em insurers Of the safety
OF the property OF their guests and must therefore
order Judgment for be- pa nt for $500 besides costs
and the usual allowance