Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1881-01-22


corporate dignity, already mentioned as a mo
tive to conduct, sometimes leads Bostonians to
entertain strangers especially foreign visitors)
But as rule they show no generous interest
in those OF their own klth aud kin who have
done something noteworthy, something which
in New York, or Washington, or London.
would lead to their being moderately sought
for in agreeable circles
II responsibilities Of Hotel Keepers.
decision recently rendered In the courts OF
New York City Is OF particular interest TO per.
sons keeping or patroniZing hotels and restau-
rants. gentleman having occasion to par
tered q restaurant, removed his overcoat aud
hung 1t on hook, provided for that purpose
by the proprietor fthe place. When the guest
part, he discovered that his overcoat had been
stolen, and the restaurant keeper refusing to
make the loss good, the guest brought suit to
recover It's value ~, me DEFENDANT denied any
was not engaged In keeping hotel and sec
ond. because the guest had not delivered the
overcoat to his custody. The court, however.
from denying that he kept hotel, for the rea-
son that In taking out license to sell liquors,
he had made an affidavit that his place ,rds a
hotel. Under the peculiar laws existing In
New York regarding the sale OF liquors, the
decision has considerable local Importance for
the reason that only hotel keepers are per-
mite United 70 sell iauors except IN few special
restaurant licensed to sell liquor. is registered
as hotel, and required by law to accommodate
all guests applying for lodgings for themselves
and beasts. to the full extent OF their capacity.
At least three beds pust be supplied for the
accommodation OF travellers, and TO all tntents
and purposes the establishments are hotels.
the propr1etorS being held strictly to the duties
and liabilities OF hotel keepers. In this view
OF the case and the authority OF the decision
referred TO- enforcing IL, every individual en-
gagged In dispensing liquors is liable to any loss
w In &c yalo nS
business, except when 1t Is Occasioned by an
act OF Providence. To modify this liability the
proprietor must put himself within the law re-
latlng 10 tne Obligations OF hotel keepers, as
provided by statuteSA
The peculiar circumstances arising In New
YORK city DO not exist everywhere, but the
the absolute security Of his guests property is
universally recognized. 1t Is embodied In the
Common Law and has been generally followed
closely in all recent statutes. Such moiitica
lions as have been made. are more In the d.
rection OF defining clearly the duty OF the
hotel keeper. and 10 aiding him to perform IL
ully and effectively. Thus laws have been
enacted permitting the hotel keeper 10 provide
safe place OF deposit for the vaiuables OF his
guests and 10 require the guests to make such
d. pcslt The laws do not relieve him OF the
obligation Of guarding the property OF his pa
siraele method OF doing so. But to avail him
self OF the special privileges afforded by the
statute law, the hotel keeper must comply
OF any one removing hts case from under tie
operation OF the statutes and subJectlng him
TO the old Common Law liability. In some
states, as 10 New York particularly. the hotel
keeper Is bound to post notice In some con-
spiCuouS place in the room OF each guest, an
nouncing that safe has been provided for the
depositiDg OF leWelry, money and other val
! uaoles, and that unless the guest deposits such
property with the proprietor he WIN not be
responsible for its loss. II such notice is not
displayed as directed, the guest is at liberty to
disregard any other notice which he may OBJ
tain, and hold hts host responsible as under the
common Law. The statutes regulating the
duties and liabilities OF hotel keepers are com.
paratively OF recent date. and nunberless law
proper construction. One point which has
been very much mooted relates to the duty OF
aguest to deposit everythingof value with the
hotel keeper. The point has been RAISED that
when the proprietor has complied strictly
with all the provisions OF the law, he is there
after relieved from all liability for any loss oc-
f Gas to the guest excepting as regards
The courts have, however. taken a different
| view, ana where guests room had been en-
tered at night and his clothes stolen the court
| held that II would be an absuTdty to claim
that the law required a man to deposit his ne
| cessary wearing apparel In safe In the hotel
office, or run the risk OF losing it, without re-
course to the host, II he retained 1t In his own
possession. The purpose OF the law was not to
exempt the hotel keeper from all liability: ii
was only TO enable him 10 make his business
less hazardous by securing himself against
guard the property presumed to be UNDER i,is
charge. 1t Is now web settled that a guesf
may retain In his own custody all necessarT
E Msalpg apPsrel ana stu look to the hotel
what Is wearing apparel" is still a mooted
question, and the tendency OF judicial deci
tn@ mas peen 70 enlarge somewhat its mean
cided by the courts Of New YORK. "a Sn eet
oIougnt SUIT lor the value OF his watch and
Sta an, ,ewe,ry, which had been stolen from
whether watch was jewelry, such "a The law
required TO be deposited In the custody or the
notel-keeper. The court held that it was NOT.
Inaa II was part OF gentemans wearing ap.
parel as much as was his coat or vest The
valqe OF the watch could not AFFECT the
question; 1t might be worth only a dollar. or
IL might De valued at thousand dollars; In
owner, and worn by him as q part or his an.
Rarel, 1t ceased to be tewelry In q legal sense
put Wnere watch sellers agent put up az a
his II was aela tSan a6a samples IN
was not responsible for the loss OF the pr6n-
erty, as 1t was the manifest Intention Of tpe
I law 70 relieve the hoteLkeeper from the re-
IL was Ia his actual control Some Conflict has
arisen IN the decisions relating to studs sleeve
DutLons and even watch chains, but it Is gen.
10 permit a traveller to retain tn his own nos,
session such articles as 60 to make up his oral
may azure, and which he could NOT denosft
WIN MS host until he had partly disro6ed. Az
. 70 Inc ngae OF lady guest to retain her ear
Iings ana nnger rings which she Is in the habit
0I wearing daily. there is q similar want of
harmony 10 deciding. The safest course to
pursue Is 10 deposit them with the hotel
Heeepe1, even though some personal iRconve-
nIehce Is occasioned. OF course all these
questions, doubts and decisions arise only un-
9eI statute laws which have changed the prac-
uce unoer the common law. Where the latter
rs SUI In force the hoteLkeeper is absolufeiv
na0ie f0r all loss which the guest suffers while
n MS care, whether from the Dishonesty of
me formers servants or OF stUnQefs Whether
oy accident or design, nor is the Rueef "a
CURED to take more than ordinary care az hts
own property. But tits to be remembered that s
Only notel-keeperS are made to hear tihis "a
sponstbflity. Boarding house ana reafanr.n1
keepers are only Responsible where thew are
grossly or criminally negligent. ana fhe ,oes
follows Immediately therefrom. znes.fco o,s
bll L. to be introduced IN the De,avare
r1S1lASQie exempttng from taxation. for tao
VII ~ ieast au persons coming into the stsfo
Win the intention Of colonizin0. ''@s'
IL. zen Mneyardi6ts In Napa county. Gail
~ H. pl0ouced Lest year over Lice 90 gallons