The Herald of Wales and Monmouthshire Recorder. — 1884-11-08 (Swansea, West Glamorgan, Wales)

MAMMY OF HOTEL-KEEPERS.  On Thursday in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Judicature, the case of Moss v. Rouell mune before the Master of the Rolls and Lords Justioes Cotton and Lindley by way of appeal by the plaintiff for • judgment of Lord Justice Beggslay at trial. The defendaut,it appeared, was an innkeeper, and kept the Compton Hotel in Church-street, Liverpool, as • common inn for the accommodation of travellers. On the 15th June, 1883, the plaintiff, Frank Moss, a commercial traveller' representing Blankenses and Co., of Birmingham, was reosived by the defendant into the inn. The plaintiff had with him • bag containing 29 gold, 88 silver, and two metal watches, of the value of £l7l la, and • sample case of the value of about £3 10a, This bag was delivered into the care of the defeadact's servants, but, by reason of the defendant's alleged negligence, the bag was lest. The Plaintiff, therefore, by his action claimed £IBS damages. The defendant denied his liability, and Lord Justice Baggallay at the trial giving judgment in his favour, the plaintiff now appealed to this court. —Mr. Kennedy appeared for the appellant ; Mr. French represented the respondents.—The Master of the Rolls. Where were these goods placed? —Mr.Kennedy : On the first-floor, beside the head boots' desk—the place where be usually put begs.— The Master of the Rolls : Then if he put the bag in the usual place, where is the negligence?— Mr. Kennedy: In the head boots not taking more cars of the bag after being told that it was valuable. It is admitted that the bag was put in II place where valuable things would not be put—Lord Justice Cotton: When the plaintiff told the out. porter to go out to the boota must not that have been to take care of it in the place where begs were usually put? If you want a thing kept in safe custody you take it to the office where valuables are kept. He, however, merely told the boots to take care of it—Mr. Kennedy: I think not, and for this reason: In the plaintiff's evidence it appeared that it was his experience that goods delivered to boots were usually placed in a luggage.room, and la aid not know that this hotel had an office for valuables. Moss had only been there once before. The defendant's own view of the matter immediately after the lees was discovered was that the hoots had not put the bag in the right place, and he called the boots "a fool" for not taking more care of the bag. The Master of the Roll,: A fool is not necessarily negligent. (Laughter.) Mr. Kennedy went on to argue that the boots, being told that the bag was valuable, it was his duty to have put it in the office. which he knew was the place for keeping valuables, and that therefore the defendant was liable for the loss that had occurred. Without calling on the other side the Master of the Rolls, in giving judgment, said the first question was whether the innkeeeper was liable under the Act to a greater sum than £3O, which he had paid into court; and the second was whether the defers. dant was protected by the statute. He was not to be liable to a greater extent than £9O in one category unless the goods had been deposited with him expressly for safe custody. The evidence showed that it had been deposited with the head boots with a declaration that it was valuable. The alleged negligence was not within the meaning of the statute by which the defendant was protected. Moss never told the heed boots to take it to the office—he merely told him "to keep his eye on it." It was said the boots should have taken the bag to the office, but there was no negligence in his not doing that, because he had not been told to do it. Then his lordship thought that the defendant was not liable to a greater extent than 1.30 under the 2nd sub-section of the Act which providedthat "the innkeeper is not to be liable to an extent larger than £3O, except where the property shall have been stolen, lost, or injured through the wilful act, default, or neglect of such innkeeper or any servant in his employ." His Lordship thereupon thought the judgment of Lord Justice Baggslay was right, and should be affirmed. Lords Justice Cotton and Lindley agreed, and the appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.  The crew of the Niger° on Thursday attended at the Mansion House, London and thanked the Lord Mayor for having inaugurated a fund for the relief, during their recent captivity, of their wives and relatives. The Lord Mayor, in reply, said it gave him great pleasure to see them, not only for their own sakes but for the sake of the national honour. They had not to thank him particularly as he had only done what anyone in his position would have done. The visitors partook of refreshments before leaving At Linenhall Barracks, Dublin, on Thursday, a soldier named Boyce, of the sth Fusiliers, attempted to commit suicide by shooting himself. When under the influence of drink he put the muzzle of his rifle in his mouth, and forced back the trigger. It is supposed that the weapon was only loaded with blank cartridge. Bye singular remissness on the pert of the authorities, a voters' roll has been issued by the townclerk of Greenock which contains the names of a number of women householders who are described as being entitled to vote "in the election of a member of Parliament "for that borough. The list was intended to denote the women entitled to vote in the election of town councillors. The women can claim to vote in • Parliamentary election, since their Mina are on the register, but they cannot, until the error is rectified, exercise their right of voting in municipal contests.  Value,