The San Francisco call., 1904-12-25
LUGGAGE SAFE
IN OLD LONDON
Judge Decides That Board
ing House Keepers Can
not Hold Guests Trunks
DAMAGES FOB AMERICAN
Court Says Baggage of De-
faulting Patron Is Safe
From Grip of Landlords

LONDON. Dea 91-Not & few Amer
lcAn tourists who have found them
Ee1Res stranded have had their bag
gags seizsd by clearinghouse keepers
becsuss they could not pay their bills,
and have sorowfuny returned home,
having their trunks. as little Bo-Peep's
sheep oic their tails. behind them But
uodez q rscs1t decision OF Judge Wood
tan ths trzns-Atlsntac visitor who
Ends himself temporarily short Of the
whe-w1thsl VIII no longer be under
the painful necessity OF leaving his
baggage IN the hands OF the stony
hearted boarding-house mistress who
refuses 20 accept his assurance that he
WI send her & check as soon as he
reaches New York With his unre-
oe.pted bill IN his pocket, and his bag
gage Piled on top OF a cab, in the
English fashion. he may depart smil-
ing For Judge Woodfau has explicit
ly lad IL down that q boarding house
keeper has no authority TO detain the
personal effects OF a boarder who fails
70 settle his bill.
Il was against a Bloomsbury board
ing-house proprietor that this interest
ing decision was obtained Bloomsbury
Is the district IN which most American
visitors congregate. For their express
accommodation most OF the houses
have been transformed into boarding
houses conducted on the American
plan. all the guests taking their meals
together. The English system is that
p OF the lodging house in which patrons
own catering, or make some arrange
nnent with the landlady by which meals
are served to them in their own rooms.
AS a concession 10 the prejudices Of
snObbery the boarder is usually termed
a paying guest"
IN the case in question a Blooms
bury bOardfng-house keeper, acting in
accordance with custom and precedent,
seized the luggage Of one OF her guests
who owed her s42. But this particular
guest had done what apparently no
other person similarly situated had
done befOre-he had looked Up the law
on the subject. He brought suit for
$3.50 damages for unlawful detention
Of his personal effects. He was award
ed only SIS. but the important thing
was that he knocked out what had
heretofore been supposed TO be the in
disputable right OF clearinghouse
propriet0rs 10 levy on their guests ef-
fects when board bills are not paid.
Incidentally IL was brought out that
the English law, which is much given
70 hair-spliting, recognizes fine dis
tinction between q lodging-house and
p boarding house. Under the act of
1853 an inn-keeper may detain the goods
Of a guest who fails TO settle his bill.
The same right is accorded the Todg-
ing-hOuse keeper. But the act takes
no cognizance Of the boarding-hous
keeper. and according to Judge Wood
fall he or she in the matter Of col
lecting bills cannot claim the privileges
Of either the inn-keeper or the lodging
house keeper, and has no right to i'm
pound the baggage OF q defaulting
patron. The paying guest" can be
made TO pay only by means Of sum-
mons or suit. The decision has caused
great CONSERVATION in Bloomsbury.
and there is talk Of appealing for a
special act Of Parliament. or turning
all the clearinghouse into lodging
houses