The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1872-09-20
TERMS $500 PER ANNUM IN ADVANCE.


VIDE with lock the room where his guest
louges, which opens inside and does not
open irom the outside, it would be in the
po"er OF the guest TO protect bimself, and
the notei keeper would not be responsible
nss uuness II were shown lie was guilty of gross
hegHgence In other respects"
~. III ens case OF Shaw Y. Berry, 81 NJ 4S2,
Mr.Justce Tenney delivered a ye5y thorouo6
and learned opinion on lhe onesIion If he
liability OF innkeepers in when he held The
law u De as he states p. 4S2, ''that the inn
keeper is bound to keep the goods and chat
tels, so that they shall be actually safe inev-
liable accidents, the acts of public enemies
and the owner OF the goods and their ser,
wants excepted" And on page 4s3-"the
innkeeper Is not chargable, when the loss
happens through the negligence OF the
guest or those for whom he is responsible"
And the same principle is stated as the law
of Mass. in Mason v. Thompson, 0 Pick 2S4.
1t has not escaped the attention of the
court that in Cayle's case, s Coke, 1t is stated
that II IL no excuse for the inn-holder TO say
that he delivered the key OF the chamber to
his guest, in which he is lodged, and that he
LETT the door Open," and that this dictum has
been, many times since, cited with the ap-
proval OF courts OF high authority. NJ. and
50 300 Burgess v. Clements, and 6 Fl. and N
266 Morgan v. kavey, in which case 1t ap-
PNeA~N bhoo buO BuCoL ulu lOJ uS6 a nlHuL
bolt on the door of his chamber, although
his special attention was called to it by
printed notice in the chamber, and he OBJ
tanned verdict against the inn-keeper for
the value of certain articles stolen from the
chamber while he was asleep,hhe iury having
been Instructed tia. it was for T. EN- to say
whether he was guilty OF negligence in not
reading the uotice, or in net locking the door,
l agree with the judge at nisi prsus, that
a inn fAt fha A.
plaintiff was guilty of negligence; but can
not approve OF the finding of the Jury, that
the plaintiff was not guilty of negligence.
Inc language taken from Coke, as II seems
10 me, must mean that by receiving the key
OF his chamber the guest did not thereby as
sumo the entire charge and custody of his
gooos, ana exonorate the innkeeper from all
liability therefor, but that there was still a
duty remaining TO the innkeeper to bestow
proper care and attention to the safety of the
goods of his guest and in the charge of hon
est SERVANTS, etc., and that If he fsiled in this
respect, and thereby the goods were stolen
by his servants or others who should not
have been admitted to the inn, the innkeep-
er still remained cbargeable.
cannot conclude that when the negli-
gence OF the guest was the principal cause
OF the loss that the inn keeper was to be con-
sidered as an insurer against such negligence
~ SNNH 10 " W uOSINCb, Iti6 GuSGb Ol CbhG
language, IL has so often since his day bean
overruled, that it can not now be regarded
as sound law.
In the case now before the court, the Ii
belant admits he did not notice the bolt on
his door and therefore made no use of it
it was in plain sight, OF brass, on white
ground and to person whose attention was
gwen to the matter OF properly securing his
door against intruders, it could not well es-
ho L.s.. zllN 4
A passenger, who should on retiring leave
the key of his State room on the outside of
the door when not. protected with aIbolt,
thereoy Indicating 10 any depredator that the
room was not secured against him, certainly
would have no great claim tor redress, if a
thief should accept bis invitation and enter
and help himself to the property of such pas.
sepger-so too, il passenger, when proper
appliances we're provided, should neglect to
make use of aoy of them, or in any way to
secure his door in case of loss, such neglect
ought to exOn9rate the carrier from liability,
II he Las taken reasonable precautions, out
side of the stateroom by watchmen, TO pre-
vent the loss oil property, and when both
| bolt and lock are placed on the inside OF a
door, In the opinion of the court, it is a
plain manifest warning to the passenger that
the lock alone, will not afford him ADEQUATE
security, but that additional precautions are
requisite and that for this purpose bolt is
| provided as security against intruders-
certainly bolt is much more sure and effect
ual, than an ordinary lock, as 1t could not be
reached from the outside without violence
and noise and breaking of the door which
must attract the attention of the watch on
| duty 10 any portion of the saloon. Having
| tnus cautioned and warned passengers by
| placing the bolt on the inside of the door
wbeer with ordinary care it must be seen,
hold that carrier has a right to expect OF q
passenger TO use the same for his security
aud protection, and that he is guilty Of
negligence in not doing so. and il by such
negligence thief entsrs his state room aud
carries away his property and he thereby
sustains loss. which would not have been
Incurred by him, ii he had bolted his door
he has no just cause of complaint against the
carrier, ii the latter has done all that could
be reasonably demanded Of him TO prevent
such losses. The passenger has no right to
expect, that guard will be placed in front
OF every state room door and in the present
instance, 1t this door had been bolted. in case
OF any attempt to enter from the saloon it
must have been detected by the watch on
duty.
The carrier being thus released from ac-
countabllity, by reason of the negligence of
the passenger, it is not necessary fer me to
determine whether he is or not accountable,
under other Circumstances, to a passenger
Tor money stolen from his state room while
asleep.
In 1866, this question was very thoroughly
examined By the Supreme Court of Michigan
IN Mickey. Owen vol. 15p..115 Mr.. Justice
Christiancy holding that the carrier was ac-
countaAle, Cooley j. concurring. Mr.. Jas.
tice Campbell delivering an opinion adverse
to the plaintiff 10 which the Chief Justice
! concurred, and as the court was eoually Ill
vided plaintiff did not prevail. Ali OF the
authorities bearing upon this auestic.n ar.
referred to in these learned opinions with the
exception OF Walch v. Steamer n M.
wright, Newberry r. 494 in which McCobb
j. District Court, Louisiana, held that the
carrier was liable for the contents of a yalisa
stolen from a passengers stste room while
she was asleep. and this decree was affirmed
by Campbell J. on appeal to the Circuit
Court.
In Abbott Y. Broadstreet 55 Maine $40
tlS64l the Supreme Court OF this State de-
cided that the owners of steamboat are
not liable Tor money stolen from the pockets
OF passenger thereon when 1t does not appear
that the robbery was peFpetrated by one
OF the employees OF the o.5ss-an examina-
tion OF the record in that case discloses. that
81 tue time OF the robbery the passenger was
10 MS perth, in the common cabin and not in
private s,ateroom.
In this diversity and uncertainty this court
may well leirain from expressing any opinion
upon this point as the main objection is
decisive of the cause.
Libel dismissed with costs.
Mattocks e. Fox for Libelant.
A. A. STout for Claimants
RUSJNESa Nnr.rns