The daily morning journal and courier., 1900-02-24
THE GUEST AND THE BOARDER

It Makes a Difference Whether it is the One or the Other in the Case of Loss in Hotel.
 While hotel proprietors have little time to study law and a little learning
 in an especially dangerous thing in the legal world yet there are certain prom inent legal facts concerning the hotel
 business that it is well to bear in mind. Chief among these peculiarities is just conception of what is implied in the term guest" wfben compared with that
 closely related individual, the "board-
 er."
 A court decision as to whether per-
 son is a guest, a wayfarer, traveller, a transient or boarder has often decided whether a hotel is or is not responsible for loss in the one case, and whether a
 person can be or cannot be arrested and fined under the "dead beat law" in the
 other. In a recent state supreme court
 decision verdict was rendered in favor
 of the hotel, because the court declared
 that the persons bringing the suit for
 loss of wearing apparel, amounting to
 over five hundred dollars, were board
 CTS, not guests. As boarders a far
 greater responsibility was placed upon
 the hotel tenants, and far less responsi-
 bility upon the hotel. The permanent
 resident of the hotel must watch his
 vauables somewhat after the manner of the person residing in a private
 home. In the case of transient guest or the wayfarer, the greatest possible
 responsibility for the welfare and safe keeping of the guest and his appurte- nances is placed upon the hotel keeper.
 The cause of this latter ruling may be traced back several hundred years to the common law of England, law that originated at time when hotel keepers had not the moral and business standing that they have to-day. At that time the government was com pelled to protect the wayfarer from neg ligence (and often something far worse) of the inn keeper as we'll as from pos sibe harm and injury from persons he was liable to harbor under his roof. The inn keeper was made responsible for the life and safety of the traveller; for his llors and equipment. That view of the inn keeper, based upon law and custom controls the situation to great extent even to-day. It is a reflection of the practices that characterized inn keeping hundreds of years ago. The moral of this, so far as the hotel keeper is concerned, is, Watch we'll your tram sient guests; he can demand more pro- lection than the boarder and 1t is well to remember that his belongings are directly in your charge.
 But on the other hand, if you have occasion to demand or bring suit for an unpaid hotel bill, all the advantage is with the regular boarder He can walk out owing you for years accommoda- tions or more, and you can collect for it only as you would collect for an unpaid coal or grocery bill.
 Frequent mistakes. resulting in seri- ous loss and worriment to the hotel pro- prietor have been caused by the hotel man not appreciating or realizing the great difference between the rights of boarder and those of the transient guest In the case of the former you are supposed to have ample time to as- certain whether the patron is able or unable, has an inclination or disincli- nation, to pay his bills. You may de- termine this before any loss has oc- cured In the case of the transient guest this is impossible, hence the special enactment to protect the hotel keeper.
 A simple understanding (which in some instances is not so sinple) as to what constitutes a guest and what a the person who may sue or is to be sued Is a guest or boarder will often decide for the hotel man what action it is advisable to take, further inyestigation.-Chi Hotel World.