CHRONICLE. 



275 



25. Jones v. Jones. — This was a 

 case of considerable public interest, 

 and established thefact, of landlords 

 and innkeepers being answerable 

 for the property of their customers, 

 while under their roof. It was an 

 action tried at the last Hereford 

 assizes, before Mr. Baron Wood,— 

 the facts of which were as follow : — 

 The plantiff had a rider in his em- 

 ploy, named Evan Jones, who left 

 London in December last, and in 

 five days after arrived at an inn at 

 Wrexham, in Denbighshire, kept by 

 the defendant. The inn being full, 

 the rider was obliged to sleep in a 

 three-bedded-room, two of which 

 were occupied by the defendant's 

 own family. The rider swore at 

 the trial, that on the morning of his 

 arrival at Wrexham he had a pocket- 

 book containing 400/.in banknotes; 

 that meeting with several of his 

 Welch friends, he drank freely, but 

 was not intoxicated. On going to 

 bed at night, he recollected placing 

 his waistcoat in a chair by his bed- 

 side, and the pocket book was safe. 

 When he awoke the next morning, 

 his cloathswerethere,buthis pocket- 

 book was gone ; upon which he 

 roused the whole family, declared 

 his loss, and all joined in searching 

 the bed-charaber ; but the pocket- 

 book could no where be found. — 

 The defendant and his wife appeared 

 extremely anxious that the pocket- 

 book should be found, and actually 

 sent for a constable to assist in the 

 search. In answer to this, the de- 

 fendant brought all his servants and 

 children to prove, that they never 

 saw the pocket-book; and the judge 

 summed up in favour of the defend- 

 ant, observing that it was a very 

 hard law against innkeepers, who 

 were made liable for the security of 

 the goods of their guests ; and un- 



less the jury were satisfied of the 

 evidence of the rider, they would 

 find for the defendant.— The jury, 

 however, consulted together for 

 some time, and found a verdict for 

 the plaintiff. — Damages, 400/. 



Mr. Jervis came to court this 

 terra, and obtained a rule to show 

 cause why the verdict should not be 

 set aside, and a new trial had; that 

 verdict being against the directions 

 of the judge. This day the case 

 came to be fully argued ; and since 

 the court granted the conditional 

 rule, the following extraordinary 

 fact had come to light. The de- 

 fendant had fallen into distress, his 

 goods were seized in execution, and 

 a public sale advertised on the 29th 

 ult.; on which day the auctioneer, in 

 presence of the persons assembled, 

 put up for sale a bed and mattresses, 

 remarking, that it was the same in 

 which the young man had slept who 

 lost the ^OO/. The lot was purcha- 

 sed by a person, who joined in mak- 

 ing an affidavit of the fact ; and to 

 his astonishment and surprise, be- 

 tween the two old mattresses, 

 which were under the feather-bed 

 the lostpocket-book was discovered, 

 and the 400/. in notes within it. — 

 Upon the knowledge of that fact, 

 Mr. Jervis suggested if a new trial 

 was not granted, that a stet processus 

 should be awarded, and the defend- 

 ant spared from payment of the 

 costs. Mr. Jervis added, that the 

 defendant was most interested for 

 his character, which had suffered bj' 

 the verdict; and he contended, that 

 the rider having gone to bed intoxi- 

 cated, might, by the cunning some 

 men possessed in their intoxication, 

 have hid the book between the mat- 

 tresses, and the next morning lost 

 all recollection of the fact. 



The chief baron admitted that it 



t2 



wait 



