The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1877-12-06
Tho committee adjourned until Friday.
MaJOR-GEN HfNCOCK's DIfMONDs.
Are the Hotel Proprietors Responsible He
cnn.e They were STOLEN from his Hocmi

An appeal has been taken TO the General
Term Of the supreme Court in the case OF the
Hancock diamond robbery. and the counsel for
the plaintiff announces that he intends carving
the case to the Court Of Appeals II necessary be-
fore accepting the award Of the referee. The
suit is brought by Major Gen. Winfield y Han
cock to recover the value Of certain diamonds
stolen from him and members Of his family
while boarding in the st. Cloud Hotel. at Broad
way and Forty second street. in 1874.
Ia November. 1873. Gen. Hancock occupied
rooms in the hotel then. as now. kept by the
Rand brothers. ono evening in the spring or
early summer Of 1874 thief entered the Gem
erals rooms while the family were absent nj
the theatre. and stole therefrom the following
jcwcry belonging to the General, Mrs. Han
cock and their daughter Ada f.: A diamond
cross valued at $3.50; diamond earrings with
opal centre suspended from n star with small
diamonds. valued at s77j; brcastpn and two
diamond earrings clusters-about seven stones
in each custer-suspcndcd by gold leaves. and
valued ut $3.50 two gold bracelets valued at
t27j; and gold chain for the neck valued al
f2bl. The thief Also carried m The GonciHls
military and society badges a watch with gold
buckles and slides, and other ornaments. the
whole being valued nj more than $4,000. Access
WIS supposed to have been gained 10 the rooms
through u hack window.
Three suits were brought to recover the value
General. another Ms ADM illustrator Of his duugh-
ter Ada f.. and the third in the name Of his
to Horauo 7. Av"rill. Esq. The casr attracted
widespread interest. from the TAFT that II Was
the first in which the liability Of the hotel pro-
pri"tor In such matters. under the present law.
came sluarey before the courts. TIE de.iS on
rendered. II sustained, is of the highest impor-
un'", not only L. landlords in general but t.
wealthy persons who live in hotels. and always
have more or less personal property about
The loss Of the diamonds and their value was
iully proved. ns was also the fact that the
law requiring them 10 post up in their ofilre and
bedrooms tn legal notice requiring guests To
deposit their money valuablcs. g. in the
SAFE provided in the Office.
Two points were urged Ivy the defence. the
FIRST being that n" notice had been posted in
even If il had not. tho fact that h.
had engaged board nj special rates OK
To prove the former proposition. counsel for
the Rand Brothers called an aged chnnbrrmaid
named Mullienn. who first testified that such
notices had boon posted W in every room in
the house On ia" cross exam nation. Gen.
McMahon osksd; One word. Mrs. Mullisan.
The witness rranklyi-No. your Honor.
Gen, McMahon-How do you know. then,
The witness NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. can
read, your Honor and sometimes | can't.
rhc urrponiornnoe Of tcstlmonyon this point
was against tn defendants. and thercicrce said
On the point ~ liability under special contract
II was proved that ti'n Hancock had paid FOR
rooms and hoari 1855 a month. with the urivi-
loge OF paying $3.50 per month for the rooms
alone and being charged rNtrn for such meals
H. might Tee ordered from the restaurant.
The counsel for IA" General urged that this
was clearly "A ease in whl,I the plaintiff. 10y
boarding and lodging r"gulary at tho hotel.
was entitled To- all the prvl ges II a IA. ~ and
among others thHt of being compensated Tor
property stolen through the negligence II the
prOprietors.
Referee Avcrll gave judgment to the defend
anti.