296 ANNUAL REGISTER, 
province. An innkeeper is bound 
to keep the goods of his guest, 
hospitandi, so that no loss eveniat 
prodefectuhospitatoris. ‘The court 
did not mean to say that where 
goods are stolen, it was not prima 
Jacie evidence of defect of care on 
the part of the landlord; but un- 
der circumstances, the landlord 
might no doubt be exempt; as in 
this, where the plaintiff’s conduct 
not only concurred, but induced 
the loss. Calye’s case allows 
that where the guest introduces 
the thief, the landlord shall not be 
answerable. The questions in 
this case were, therefore, lst, 
whether the plaintiff took the 
apartment animo hospitand: ; and 
2ndly, whether his own conduct 
didnot conduce to the loss. Upon 
the evidence it appeared that the 
plaintiff asked for a particular 
room to shew his goods; now a 
landlord is not bound to find his 
guest exhibit-rooms for the pur- 
pose of expanding his goods—he 
is not bound to provide shops, but 
convenient lodging for his guests. 
The Court agreed with the case in 
Moor, that the mere delivery of 
the key of a room would not dis- 
pense with the care and attention 
due from the landlord, and that 
he could not exonerate himself by 
merely handing over a key to his 
guest ; but if the guest takes the 
“key, it is a proper question for the 
jury, whether he has taken it ani- 
mo custodiendi, and for the purpose 
of exempting the landlord from 
his liability. Lord Coke also laid 
it down, that if the guest’s ser- 
vant, companion, or fellow-lodger 
rob him, the landlord is not Jia- 
ble; and in this case the plaintiff 
called strangers together for the 
purposes of a show, and invited 
1815. 
the admission of persons into the. 
room, upon whose approach and, 
access the landlord had no check. 
This was evidence of an user of the. 
inn for purposes alien from those 
hospitandi; and it was hard to call 
upon the innkeeper to protect pro- 
perty in a room used for these, 
purposes. It appeared that the 
defendant advised the plaintiff to 
bolt his door, for there were 
strangers about; and after this 
suspicion had been communicated 
to him, he was obliged to use di- 
ligence in protecting his own pro- 
perty; ordinarily, a guest cer- 
tainly had a right to rest on the 
protection of his landlord; but 
after the latter’s fears expressed 
and admonition given, he was 
bound to use some degree of cau- 
tion himself.— Rule discharged. 
Halmanv. Whitmore.—This was 
an action ona policyofinsurance on 
goods onboard the Venus. The ves- 
sel had been captured and re-cap- 
tured, and the salvageand charges 
which were incurred were sought 
toberecovered. The vesselbelong- 
edtoa Dutch merchant ofthename 
of Nolan, and the interest in the 
goods was averred to be in him. 
At the time the insurance was ef- 
fected, the Dutch were alien ene- 
mies ; but a licence had been pro- 
cured for the voyage by a person 
of the name of Bin, to the follow- 
ing effect :—It was granted to C. 
Bin on behalf of different British 
merchants for the ship Venus to 
proceed with a cargo of certain 
specified articles to any port be- 
tween the Texel and the Scheldt 
bearing any colours except the 
French. Upon the construction 
of this licence as to whether it co- 
vered the interest of Nolan, at the 
