Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1886-12-02

49,.
ienuahtf i'm becatne liable for her return to
Nun IN as good condition as she yns when
the defendant received her, is there anv
lnlng which will excuse such liability. and
II so,uld such excuse exist In this case nDon
inc testimony OF the defendant ami his Wit
nessest Ihase are, under the circumstances,
very interesting questions, none Of which
have before, In this State, boon presented for
consideration to court and Jury, Thew
concern the whole travelling public. and
that body OF men, very numerous Ia this
county, called innkeepers, or keepers OF
what are now called hotels.
~ Is said that inns exist for the benefit OF
the travelling community. In fact they are
almost as much u necessity TO trnyelerg as
the public means of locomotlon are. There
was time when any one could keen an
Inn but that Is now long past and none are
allowed to maintain them but persons
regularly licensed by public authority. IN
tnem wayfaring people Of every kind II
they can nfford the expense which
the host charges for that service,
can De accommodated with diet and
entertained in their journeyings. The
necessities Of such people obiige them TO
SOLICIT entertainment at the public or conn
mon inns, both for themselves and their
beasts where they travel with such; other
wise they would be without shelter and
food. Because Of this necessity, and that
the most or entertainer, Is generally UNI
known 70 party resortlng to his house, or
lnni and that such party Ia compelled to
trust himself and his property to his keep.
ing,and that he is charged by the innkeeper
Tor such entertainment OF himself and his
beasts, and the custody OF his property, the
law holds the tnnkeeper to strict liability;
not from any contract between the parties.
but from the duty growing out Of his public
employment. One OF the incidents OF his
business OF common innkeeper, Is that he is
bound to receive and entertain all such as
apply to him for that purpose, and are In fit
condition to be taken into q public inn as
guests, provided there be room for that
purpose. There are statutory exceptions to
this rule, but / am not now concerned to
speak OF them. Another OF them is, that he
is bound for the safe keeping and we'll
Keeping Oh the bensts OF the guest, and his
goods, that fs, his luggage, apparel money,
&c., 80 that II any OF them be stolen, or
otherwise lost, or damaged In his inn while
the relation Uf host and guest continues, he
must make good such loss or damage.
Every ono who Is received into IN inn and
has entertainment there for which the Inn
Keeper has compensation by way OF re-
muneration or reward for his service, is
guest. The relation of host and guest
exists. This general definition, however,
only includes those who In n legal sense are
travellers or Wayfarers; and boarlers, or
persons VINO reside in the same place are
not embraced by it. 1t is only travellers, or
wayfarers that the innkeeper is bound to
accept as guests, and 1t Is for them alone
that he is under extraordinary RESPONSE
bility for the safe-keeplng Of beasts and
goods. Inns are for them, as the books
teach us; that Is for their sustentatlon and
nourishment and protection Of their goods
from depreciation by thieves and robbers at
stages OF repose In their journeylngs. The
liability OF innkeepers to others than those
just mentioned, are not so great; but they
are very adequate. Taking tho definition
before given IN Its strict sense, 1t would
seem that the term guest only applies to
those who lodge or obtain meat or drink, at
an Inn for compensation to the innkeeper.
But this Is not the case, as we think. Upon
this subject the authorities are, unfor-
tunately, not agreed; but after n careful
| consideration oil them, especially upon re-
view OF the older ones, those nearest to the
| time when inns began to be recognized and
controlled by law, We are satisfied that the
| law may be given TO you by us, and we now
| declare 1t for your guidance, that IL u person
who comes within the meaning Of the
| term traveller or wnyfarer-that Is being
/ upon q journey passing over tho country
/ from place to place, or from one place to
anotharand returning--has occasion TO seek
| entertainment for his beasts, and obtains 1t
| for them, upon consideration OF reward
or pay charged him by the host, or land
4 lord Re Is In legal Bense q guest as much so
| as II he had himself received personal en-
tertainment: and while such entertainment
| for his beasts continues, If any damage or
/ injury happen to them or they be stolen, he
is, subject to certain exceptions to be mem
toned, absolutely liable for them, to the
same extent as II he had undertaken against
the particular damage by special agree
| ment, The,law makes the owner guest be-
cause OF the compensation charged by the
innkeeper. The liability OF the traveller
for that (Which attaches upon the reception
OF the beasts) constitutes this relation oil
host and guest. II Is his property that Ii
nourlshed, while upon his journey and that
In law is the same AS II he had been In his
own person the actual recipient Of enter
talnment. II would be otherwise entirely
Of dead, or inanlmate things left at the inn
| by such traveller jas to which nothing would
DO paid to the innkeeper. The existence Of
an Inn involves ia legal contemplation q
stable attached to italsO; and travellers with
horses and carriages are not to be Presumed
to put them up at the Inn TO be kept there
otherwise than rs IN inn stables strictly
whereas those not travooro In tho sense
have been employing, but merely putting
| up their teams at the inn stable as u iiverJ
(as Is the case with persons residing neal
towns who uso such stables as mere con
| yeniences) are not to be considered in the
liznt of guests, and entitled 10 the same de-
gree of prote ton as travellers arc. They
do not strictly come within the definition o
travellers persons upon journey. Livery
Stable Keepers are unler dlnerent anu lest
weighty responsibility than innkeepers
and they are Justly without one great ben
eilt the latter possess.
haye said that where the relation o.
guest In an inn exists, whether from persona
| entertainment or for that given to tht
travellers beusts the innkesper Is absolutely
liable for all loss or damage to the property
| OF the guest, subject TO certain exceptions
hey are, what is called the act OF God
such as earthquake, Lightning, flood--tht
| public enemy, that ID the forces OF IL nation
engaged In hostile war with that OF the inn
keepor--and the act or conduct Of the gues
| or his friends or servants. The first of these
i, aptly called inevitable accident without
the intervention OF man (Kont II, page 597
, that IL some casualty which human fore.
+. sight could not discern, and from the con
seauencesof which, therefore, no protection
could he provided, III tho statements OF INT
WITNESSES FOR the defendant ave to be believed
! | The fracture OF the mares leg was not oe
/ | easioued by any defect In the stable II
: which she stood, for they, and tho Inn
keeper also testify to It's good condition
int was the result of accident entltely-
Z falling upon the leg in the endeavor by TIT
= mare to get up. Ii 1t was broken In Una
= manner, then 1t could not have been pre-
! vented by any care or previous PGoVlsio,i
i nv the innkeeper. You must ulsDelleVe I'M
testimony entirely II you give credit to ina
4 Of the plaintiff who swears to hole mad
Il NV n broken board In one side OF the stall
o in which state 1t might be supposed ina
i the mare got her leg In that hole, ana thu
u II was broken. You have three witnesses Z
y one that there was no hole ut all 6ut SUI
{, YOU may consider the evidence OF that on
/, | If greater weight than that OF the tnre
{ Others, The plaintiff, however, and tn
G defendant are both interested witnesses
r md stand alike with the bias oil lntefes
e upop their minds. Until OF iate VACties
t. n anti could not be witnesses, from tlsk {
Il nerjllry. The risk still exists, though Tn
d law has been changed; but the jury are
N Judge Of their credit, according OF not
y their statements are corToboratCu, Or lroi
r iii the circumstances, they appear to :
1t | correct. The mare was certainly !ame ]
IL that leg when she came to the stable, Oy u
Il accnilIits though the statements as To III
u dayree al lameness differ, She hud CON
10 hi,f il miles. however. There Is .belleV
+ no evidence before you that hot3e II
ID good limbs would be likely 10 NJ i,l
nj more or less In drive oil 10 ml,osI ~ a.,
~ | there was NJ hSlecuiSnt y ,-a.i,,,, ~ nr
10 respeet, This Ii matter of experiences an
as observation: among the qualities OF a pen
N worth 5000 it would seem there should
nj one that it can stand without lameness
9, drive of Ii miles. The theory OF the d
Is fsndant is that the lameness arose tro
re previous Injury to the leg, and sears ups
an Il at lie place Of the fracture were sWol
tn TO In behalf OF the defendant as eXistlHs
as the time the mare came 70 % n.ne a. T.,
liz | ,a,I,had with the liniment the plaintin III
ut brot,rht with him to the Inn. That OF !,
a nIaintiff Is that it arose wholly from Z
re drive that afternoon. The shoe nom U
ga Got IN that leg was removed by the groo