The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1896-03-01
FIGHTING FOR HER DIAMONDS.
MISS LOUGHRAN's SUIT FOR $4,000
OF LOST JEWELS.

Questions of Negligence and Proper
Diligence Raised Because No No.
tIee 10 the Eject That They Must
he Left at the once Was Posted on
Her Room DoOr-The ProprfetOrs
of the De soto Say she Did Not Ex-
ercIse Even Ordinary Diligence in
Protecting Her PrODerty-The Jury
Divided and There May BE a Mis-
trial.
The De Soto diamond robbery, which oc-
CURED March %. 1888. was the subject OF
the litigation in the city court yesterday
and Judge Norwood probably CLEANED
enough about the value of precious stones
to go into the business.
The hearing was completed during the
morning, and the case went to the jury
about noon. That body of twelve men,
the impartial judges of the law and of the
facts, was stiu locked up and under sur
veillance Of the sheriff at ? O'Clock this
morning, with a fair prospect of being I'M
able to get out in time for church.
The suit, as is well known, is that of
Miss Mary +. Loughran of Brooklyn, n.
y, against Messrs. Watson & Powers,
proprtetOrs of the De Soto hotel, in which
she claims $500 damages for the loss Of
some diamonds and valuable jewelry
which was stolen from her room March
rs. 1893 while she was a guest at the hotel
Miss Loughran appeared in court, ac-
companied by her father, Mr.. John Lough-
ran, prominent banker of Brooklyn. She
was represented by Mr. X. r. Richards
Mr.. W. r. Leaken appeared for the de-
PENDANTS.
According to the evidence for the plain
tiff there was no notice posted on the
door of the room which Miss Loughran
occupied to the effect that there was a
safe in the office for the deposit of valua-
bles, and unless they were placed there
the proprietors would not be responsible.
Under the Georgia laws the posting of
such a notice is required in order TO re-
lieve the proprietors of an inn of respon-
sibility for any missing articles of value.
This fact, however. the defendants adj
mttted, and relieved the attorney for the
plaintiff from the necessity of reading
numerous decisions showing that the post
ing of such notice is required. 1t so hap
pened just at that time that the notices
which were posted on the doors of the De
Soto hotel rooms were not exactly in con-
lormlty with the law, and the proprietors
had them removed in order to replace them
with others In proper form. Several days
elapsed between the time the old notices
were taken down and the new ones were
put UP. 1t was at this time that the rob-
berry occurred.
The admission of this fact by the defen-
dants, in which they were unfortunate
put the contention and discussion almost
entirely on the point which they raised
namely that the plaintiff did not exercise
even ordinary diligence in the protection
Of her property, and that she had even
gone so far as to violate the rules of the
hotel in leaving her room door open or un-
locked
1t appeared, from the evidence, that
Miss Loughran had been told by one of
the employees of the hotel before the rob-
berry that she should not leave her room
door open. The day in question, it seems
she put her rings and jeWelry in her chat
elaine bag, put the bag in her trunk with
out locking IL, left her room door UNI
locked, and went out for drive, overlook
ing the fact also of leaving her key at the
office. When she returned the diamonds
were gone There was considerable
furry about the matter at the time. 1t
was believed that the thefts were COM
mitted by some of the bell boys, but the
view of the proprietOrs was that it was
the work of some sharper, who was look
ing for such "a chance, especially as three
rooms right near together had been gone
through and robbed at the same time.
Miss Loughran said on the witness stand
that she never felt uneasy about leaving
her diamonds in her room, because of the
good reputation of the house, and her be-
lief that her property would be fully pro-
tected. She did not know there was a safe
in the office for the deposit of such valu-
ables she said, because there was no notice
on the room door to that effect and
thought therefore her room was the only
place TO leave them. She admitted, how
ever, that she had Travelled extensively
that she had been in hotels in Florida such
as the Alcazar, Tampa Bay and others
equally prominent and knew that il was
usually customary in hotels of this class
to have a safe in the office for the de-
posit of valuables. but she said a notice
to that effect was posted on the room
doors.
Mr. Loughran, who testified to certain
facts in connection with the matter, was
asked if he had roll of bills amounting
to $500, whether he would leave them in
his trunk and leave the trunk unlocked
Certainly, he said, he would not. When
asked however, about $500 worth of dia-
monds, he appeared to think the case a
totally different one. He thought, under
was justified in leaving the valuables in
her room, as she did not know there was
a safe in the office in which they might
be kept, and supposed they would be safe
there.
The contention of the defendants was
that the plaintiff did not exercise due dill
gence in the protection of her own prop
erty. If she had locked her trunk, and
locked her room door and had taken her
key to the Office, it might have been a
different matter, but leaving them in an
unlocked trunk in an open room. it was
held, put the question in a different light
The law requires the posting of these no.
tees to relieve the proprietor of RESPONSE
bility, but il also insists that guest shall
exercise proper diligence IN the protection
of his or her property. Both these matters
were thoroughly explained in Judge Nor
woods charge.
The jury, It was understood last night,
parties to the suit. There was, appar-
| entity no possibility of an agreement be-
| ing reached and it is believed the result
will be mistrial.
70 WEDDINGS LAST MONTH.