218 



INNKEEPERS, VETERINARY SURGEONS, ETC. 



Innkeeper 

 limited by 

 26 & 27 Vict. 

 c. 41. 



Salaried 

 manager not 

 liable as 

 Innkeeper. 



Goods to 

 •which his 

 liability 

 extends. 



amount for loss not occasioned by the act of Grod or tlie 

 King's enemies («-). But by the 26 & 27 Yict. c. 41, s. 1, 

 he is no longer liable to make good to a Gruest any loss to 

 goods or property brought to his Inn, not being a Horse or 

 other lice animal, or any gear appertaining thereto, or any 

 carriage, to a greater amount than the sum of 30/., except 

 where the loss shall have been occasioned "through the 

 wilful act, default or neglect of the Innkeejter, or any 

 servant in his employ," or " where such goods or property 

 shall have been deposited expressly for safe custody" with 

 him : provided always, that in the case of such a deposit, 

 the Innheeper may require, as a condition of liability, 

 " that such goods or property shall be deposited in a box 

 or other recej)taele fastened and sealed by the person 

 depositing the same." By sect. 3, the Innheeper must 

 exhibit in a conspicuous part of the hall or entrance to his 

 Inn at least one copy of the first section of this Act, in 

 order to be entitled to its benefit. 



It has been held that "wilful" in sect. 1 of the 26 & 27 

 Yict. c. 41, must be read with "act" only, and not also 

 with "fault or neglect" [x). A mere verbal error in a 

 copy of sect. 1 of the Act, exhibited for the purpose of 

 limiting an Innkeeper'' 8 liability, will not vitiate the 

 notice so as to make it ineffectual, provided the notice states 

 correctly the provisions of the Act ; but the omission of a 

 material portion of the Statute will render the notice 

 ineifectual to protect the InnJieeper {■//). A notice was 

 exhibited in an Hotel, containing a copy of the first 

 section of the Act, correct in every particular, only that 

 in the exception the word " act " was accidentally omitted. 

 The Court held that this was a material omission, and that 

 the notice was insufficient to protect the Innkeeper {z). 



The salaried manager of an Hotel belonging to a 

 company is not an Innkeeper, so as to be by law respon- 

 sible for the goods and property of the Gruests, although 

 the usual licence has been granted to him personally (a). 



An Innlceeper is not absolved from responsibility for his 

 Guest's goods by reason of the luggage being placed in a 

 particular room at the request of the Gruest {b) ; nor before the 



(m) Per Bayley, J., Eichmond v. 

 Smith, 8 B. & C. 9. 



{x) Squire V. Wheeler, 16 L. T., 

 N. S. 93, per Byles, J. 



(y) Spice V. Bacon, L. R., 2 Q. B. 

 D. 463; 46 L. J., Q. B. 713; 36 

 L. T., N. S. 896. 



(z) Ibid. 



\a) Dixon v. Birch, L. R., 8 Ex. 

 135 ; 42 L. J., Ex. 135 ; 28 L. T., 

 N. S. 360. 



[h) Per Bayley, J., Jtichmond v. 

 Smith, 8 B. & C. 9. 



