Mineral Point tribune. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1854-1858, 1856-03-18
aeferrrs artifles

SFlFtlf5 cdttIliR5.
LIABILITIES OF HOTEL KEErERs TO TRAvELLERs.
In the case of Berkshire Wooden Company Va H.
s. Proctor ct a., at the September term Of the
Supreme Judicial Court, in Berkshire, and
which will be reported in full in the next UNI
ber of Cisshiaags Reports, decision was give
by Judge Fletcher of great importance as sett,-
ing the liabilities of hotel keepers for the loss of
the money or baggage of travellers, from their
hotels
1t appeared in evidence, and by admission,
that the defendants kept the Marlboro Hotel,
in Boston that the agent OF the plaintiffs came
to Boston about the 1st OF October, 1919, TO
take charge of law suit for the plaintiffs that
he brought some twenty-five of the plaintiffs
witnesses, and one thousand dollars of the plain
tifs' money, to pay the expenses of the suit
that he put up at the Marlboro Hotel that he
kept part Of the money in his trunk in his
room, taking it out from time TO time as he had
occasion to use 1t that on November the 3D. he
had $500 in his trunk, which he kept locked
that on November Sd, he found the lock la
been picked, and the money stolen /; that he
titled the defendants, and with them made dill
igent but unsuccessful search that be had
agreed to pay for himself and witnesses at
certain rate per week, and if they did not re-
main week to pay at a higher rate that he
did not inform the defendants that he had
money with him until after the loss that be
usually locked the door of his room when be
went out, but might not have locked it at that
particular time that he usually left his key in
the door of his room, and that it was customary
in the Marlboro Hotel for travellers to leave
their KEYS in the doors of their rooms and evil
dence also offered that it was customary
in the Marlboro Hotel to provide safe fer de-
posting large sums of money and other valuable
articles and customary for travellers to deposit
accordingly bat this custom did not appear
from the printed rules of the house, and there
was evidence that it was known to the plain
tIffs' agent.
The defendants contended that the plaintiffs
were not guests ofthe defendants, and that they
were not responsible to the plaintiffs for the
plaintiffs money in the possession ofthe plain
tiffs' agent, though he was guest at the hotel;
that the agent was not traveller but a boarder:
and that therefore they were not liable as hotel
keepers: that as hotel keepers they Were liable
only Tor a sum necessary, appropriate and de-
signed for ordinary expenses and not for the
$500 which was intended to defray the expen-
ses of lawsuit; and that said agent was bound
by their custom 70 deposit in their safe, though
ignorant of the same, and by his neglect so to
do they were exonorated.
Judge Fletcher, for the Court, said that the
agent having come to the hotel as traveller,
and having been received as such, the liability
of a hotel keeper continued, whether he remain
ed n week, month or longer, or whether be
paid by the week, month or otherwise. so lono
as he was not resident, but retained the
character Of a traveller that the defendants
were liable to the plaintiffs for the plaintiffs
money in the hands of the plaintiffs agent,
though said agent only, and not the plaintiffs
personally, put up at the hotel that if the loss
VIZ produced by the carelessness of said agent
the hote4 keepers were not liable, and that =
Knowledge by said agent of the custom to de-
post large sums in the safe, and his not com.
plying with it, would amount to such careless
ness; but that unless the hotel keepers could
clearly prove such knowledge, by said agent.
they must be held liable, and that there could
be no legal presumption that every traveller
who puts up at hotel has knowledge Of it's
particular customs and usages and that hotel
keepers are liable for the safety Of the baggage
and money OF their guests and that, as travellers
are compelled to rely almost entirely upon their
faith, and as it would be almost impossible to
prove fraud or neglig,a ce against them, upon
the great principle ofpublc utility, their llabiI
ny Is restricted to no particular amount, either
of goods or mcnev
Judgment was accordingly rendered on the
verdict for the plaintiffs.
This decision, thus settling the law in ,b;s
commonwealth Is one OF the highest import
ance to hotel keepers, and Of great interest TO
the public generally.