INNKEEPER. 217 



I£ an Innlxceper who has room in his house refuse to May be in- 

 receive a Traveller, after a tender or an attempted tender <iictecl for 

 of a reasonable sum for his accommodation, he may be ' ' ^" 

 indicted for it, and the Indictment must state that the per- 

 son refused was a Traveller {m). 



And it is no defence for the Innkeeper that the Guest What held to 

 was travelling on a Sunday, and at an hour of the night ^*^ ^° ^^- 

 after the Innkeeper^ s family had gone to bed ; or that the 

 Guest refused to tell his name and abode, as the Inn- 

 keeper had no right to insist upon knowing these par- 

 ticulars {n) . 



But although an Innkeeper cannot refuse a person who Sickness, 

 is sick, he is not bound to receive a person who comes to Drimken- 

 the Inn drunk, or behaves in an indecent or improper °*^''^' 

 manner (o). 



An action lies to recover compensation for any injury in Action for 

 consequence of such refusal ; but, as it appears, not for the ^°™^'^^^^" 

 mere refusal to receive the Traveller or his Horse (/;). 



An Innkeeper, though licensed to let Post-Horses, is not Not liable for 

 liable to an action for refusing to supply a Chaise and refusm^to 

 Horses to enable his Guest to pursue his journey, although Horsed. 

 they be disengaged and a reasonable sum be tendered for 

 them ((/). 



But although a Traveller is entitled to reasonable ac- Traveller not 

 commodation in an Inn, he is not entitled to select a par- ggi*'4*^*^*° 

 ticular apartment, or to insist on occupying a bedroom for ticular apart- 

 the purpose of sitting up all night, so long as the Innkeeper ments. 

 is willing and offers to furnish him -vNath a proper room 

 for that purpose (r) ; nor is he entitled to compel an 

 Innkeeper to furnish rooms in which to exhibit the wares 

 of his Guest, for an Innkeeper is not bound by law to find 

 show-rooms for his Guests, but only convenient lodging- 

 rooms and lodging (s) . 



An Innkeeper [t) was formerly ^r/w a /r/c/e liable to any Liability of 



(w) Fell v. Knight, 8 M. & W. {q) Bicas v. Bides, 1 Stark. 247. 



276; Bcxv. Ivens, 7 C. & P. 219; [r) Fell y. Knight, 8 M. & W. 



Mex V. Luellin, 12 Mod. 445. 269. 



(«) Eex V. Iveiis, 7 C & P. 213. («) Burgess \. Clements, 4 M. & S, 



(o) Bex V. Luellin, 12 Mod. 445 ; 306. 



and see Reg. v. Rymer, L. E., 2 {t) As to the difFerence of liabi- 



Q. E. D. 136; 46 L. J., M. C. lity existing between a Boardiiig- 



108; 35 L. T., N. S. 774; 25 House Keeper and an. Innkeeper, 



W. R. 415. see Bansey v. Bichardson, 3 E. & B. 



[p) Haivthorn v. Hammond, 1 C. 144. The law casts no obligation 



& K. 407; Lane v. Cotton, 1 Salk. on aLodging-HonseKeepertotake 



18 ; Colli7)''s case, Godb. 346 ; Palm. care of the goods of his lodger, 



374; 2 Rol. Eep. 315; Kcicton v. Holder v. Sonll>g, 29 L. J., C. P. 



Trigg, 1 Show. 270. 246. 



