392 THE ADVENTURES OF A GENTLEMAN 



keeper, this liability attaches to them ; and hence it 

 is most material for the owner to be assured of the 

 solvency of the liveryman. Vide Francis v, Wyatt, 

 3 Burr. 1498, and Eol. Abr. 668 ; but vide also Cro- 

 sier V. Tomkinson, 2 Ld. Ken. 439, for a distinction 

 in the case of a stable, underlet by the tenant to an 

 inn-keeper during races. Though my work is not 

 intended for the exclusive edification of inn-keepers, I 

 have found, since I published my first edition, that I 

 have a debt of gratitude to discharge to many of 

 them. I cannot acquit myself of it better than by 

 adding one or two cases of great practical importance 

 to them. 



The general responsibility of an inn-keeper is well 

 understood. The authority for it is the case of Cross 

 V. Andrews, Cro. Eliz. 622 ; but it is not as well 

 known that " where one leaves a horse at an inn to 

 stand there by agreement at livery, although neither 

 himself nor his servants lodge there, he is reputed a 

 guest for that purpose, and the inn-keeper hath a valu- 

 able consideration ; and if that horse be stolen, he is 

 chargeable with an action upon the custom of the 

 realm." Jelly v. Clerk, Cro. Jac. 189. The same 

 principle applies of course to injury from carelessness 



