The New York herald., 1877-11-21
GENERAL HANcocK,s Jewels.
He PALS IN A SUIT FOR PROPERTY STOLEN AT
TIE ST. CLOUD HoTEL-A ''BoARDER's

He PALS IN SUIT FOR PROPERTY STOLEN AT
TIE ST. CLOUD HoTEL-A "DoARDER's
RISKS"
SUIT has just been concluded by a decision OF the
referee whcn involves only the loss OF over $4,000
worth Of the family jewels OF Major General Winfield s.
Hancock but also very important question Of law
governing the extent OF the responsibility OF landlord
Of hotel for the loss of property belonging to his
gucsla In November 1873 General Hancock applied
TO the Messrs Rand, propfietors Of the St Cloud
Hotel, for rooms and board for himself ana family,
consisting OF himself vile and daughter. The result
was an agreement for the Of certain rooms until
the following summer (uniess sooner ordered away on
military duty together with board from the restau-
rant a. the ratio OF $3S5 month, II the General
should SO elect the use OF the Same rooms at S265
month"; he 70 pay extra for such meals he chose to
order from the restaurant From the llth OF Novem
ber 1879 10 the 18th OF June. 1874, tho General occu
pied the rooms the first month under the lrst alterna
two of the agreement and The remainder
under tho second The prices, it is claimed
by tho Ranos, were lower than tho usual
rates charged to travelling guests. While boarder
guest under the foregoing contract the General and
members OF his family had Jewelry to the value OF
about 81. 500 stolen OF their apartments Subse-
quently suits brought against the Rands TO re-
cover the value OF this property on the ground that
under the Hotel Law they were responsible Tor the oss
Two Of these suits brought in the name Of the
General one personally and the other administrator
OF his daughter. Ada H. who mad died subsequently 10
the robbery and tho third suit In the name Of his
wife, Almira Hancock. The defence set up each
ton that such loss did occur and the property
was the value claimed by plaintiffs the defendants
liable because OF the neglect OF plaintiff to do
pesit the property IN the hotel safe and also on the
1ur ther ground that plaintiffs not guests within
the meaning OF the Hotel law, but were permanent
boardss for whose losses defendants we're not respon
sible.
= THE LOST JEWELS.
Among the articles oil jewelry testified to as having
been stolen was. diamond cross valued ut $3.50;
diamond earrings with opal centre suspended from
star with small diamonds valued al $175; orcastpin
and two diamond earrings clusters. about seven
valued ut $780, two gold bracelets valued at $275 and
gold cham tor the neck, valued al 5000 10 these
were added watch, gold buckles and slides. the Gen.
erals military and society badges and numerous
other articles. The robbery took place while The
family absent at the theatre, and the thief was
supposed TO have entered through back window.
DECISION.
The referee appointed by the Supreme Court Mr.
Horato f. Averil decides IN oi delendants and
questions OF law prcse nts points which necessarily
interest every hotel landlord IN this state US wc as
those who accept accommodations from them. In his
opinion rendered III the case after antally stating
the foregoing iacts he proceeds to loss and
value OF all the properly mentioned has, think been
sufficiently proven. The prepondsrance OF evidence
also establishes the fact that the usual notices re-
CURED oy the statute IN order 20 exonera.e innkeep
IN the rooms occupied by General Hancock aud mis-
family, and the defendants have not succeeded In
proving that either OF the plaintiffs had actual notice
that sale was provided III The hotel Tor the safe
keeping OF money, jewels or ornaments. In tho cases
OF General Hancock ana his daughter tho property
iost was NOT In my opinion, such as guest Is
quired deposit In the safe provided by the keeper
Tor SAFE keeping Of vauabcs. they being articies-a
watch chain and locxet and military ana society
badges-which are useful and necessary to the COM
tort and convenience OF the guest or which are usu
parei and outfit Ronialoy va Leland, 43 N r., $50;
Giles vs. Libby. SO Barb. 70; Bernstein va Sweeny,
aoARDxR OR ounsrs
The main question wulch these give riso to and the
only one which remains to bc decided is whether,
under tae special agi gieement made between General
hancock ana the defendants, the plaintiffs In these
guests Of the defendants In the OF
Willard VS. Reinhardt, L. D. Smith, l4S. the dis
tincton between u boarding house and an inn IL
clearly stated The Court says-"In q boarding
house the guest is under express
tain rate for u certain period OF time, but in
there is no express engagement the guest being on
his way is entertained from day to day according 20
hg business upon an implied contract" This princi
pie is also amply sustained by othor authorities.
(Mowers vs Feathers, Lans., ll5; parsons Con,
hurst vs. Foster. Salk, 3S7; Dansey Rich, Els.
4 BL, IA; King VS.. Ives, &c r., 2l3; Wintermuts
ASS S'k sang 81 Stewart w. Ascressy ss
How, 62 Bennett vs. Ditson, Term, 273i
Manning vs. Wois, . Thomp, 74e, II
ment for any fixed period at Q stipulated price he
ceases be guest aud becomes boarder. (,tewart
vs.. McCreauy. "a How. Z. X. 62) In u learned and
lengthy opinion by Judge Joseph r. DAILY. In Cromwell
vs.. Stephens, Abbott s., p. 35, cited with APP
proval the OF Seward VS. seymour (Anthon's Law
Student, oily In which II wus held that we'll known
establishment, which formerly existed in this city,
called the Atlantic HOTEL had double character, be-
ing both aboardng house and inn that In respect
10 those VINO occupied rooms and were entertained
under precise contracts IL boarding house.
while with respect transient persons who, without
any stipulated contract remained from day to day, 1t
was Inn. And IN . late case II was hold
that to enforce the strict common law liability
oil innkeeper the technical relation OF
guest and nukecper must be established. (Mowers
al Fethers 81 N. Y 34) In this latter Of
the plaintiffs, with his horse occupied The defendants
premises days In the week during the season. The
price OF oats Tor he horse and OF meals for Eggner.
OF the plaintiffs liked ut rate less than those
charged ordinary travellers. 1t washcld that the
the utmost limit OF defendants liability WAS that OF
an ordinary baiee for hire. When the guest becomes
boarder the nnkeeper will not bo held 10 his pecu-
liar liability e Par on Con- l5l) Under the author
ities cited am constrained TO hold, alihough finding
the facts above stated in favor OF The plain
TINS, that OWING 10 the special agreement above men,
toned they wore not the guests Of the defendants but
only boarucrs, and therefore that tho defendants
liable Tor the losses sustained, no proof having
bocn offered that the defend were guilty gross
negligence. The dcendautsare therefore entitled to
judgment
Tne suit has been fought with great pcrsstoncy be-
fore referee by General McManon on the part OF
the plaintiffs, aud Fullerton, Knox Crosby on the
part of the defendants
THE OFFICIAL CANVASS.