INNKEEPER. 219 



Innkeepers' Liability Act (c) was passed was he compellable 

 to receive every description of goods with a Guest, but only 

 such as a person ordinarily travels with {d ) . But by the 2nd 

 section of the 26 & 27 Vict. c. 41, it is enacted that, " if an 

 Innkeeper shall refuse to receive for safe custody, as before 

 mentioned, any goods or property of his Gruest, or if any 

 such Guest shall, through any default of such Innkeeper, be 

 unable to deposit such goods or property as aforesaid, such 

 Innkeeper shall not be entitled to the benefit of this Act in 

 respect of such goods or property." However, it is to be 

 presumed that this section does not apply to such goods as 

 an Innkeeper was entitled to refuse before this Act came 

 into operation, as, if made applicable to all goods, an Inn- 

 keeper who refused to convert his Inn into a Warehouse for 

 the goods of his Guest would be disentitled to the benefit 

 of the Act in respect of them. 



It is no defence to an action by a Guest for the loss of How ousted, 

 his goods for the Innkeeper to allege that he was sick or of 

 non sane memortj at the time {e) ; nor that there was no 

 positive negligence on his part (/) ; but the negligence of 

 the Guest is a good defence, if it is gross negligence {g) , or 

 if it occasioned the loss " in such a way as that it would 

 not have happened if the Guest had used the ordinary 

 care that a prudent man may be reasonably expected to 

 take under the circumstances" (/?). 



In Oppenheim v. JF/tite Lion Hotel Co. (/), the plaintiff , who 

 was a Guest at the Inn, went to bed, having a bag contain- 

 ing about 271. in his trouser's pocket. He left his trousers 

 on the ground at the side of his bed farthest from the door. 

 There was a key in the lock of the door, but he only shut 

 the door and did not lock it. He had previously pulled 

 the bag containing the money out of his pocket in the com- 

 mercial room for the purpose of pajdng somebody some 

 money. And the Court of Common Pleas held, that there 

 was evidence of negligence on his part, which occasioned 

 the loss in such a way that it would not have happened 

 had he used the care that a prudent man might reasonably 

 be expected to have taken under the circumstances. 



(c) 26 & 27 Vict. c. 41. Q. B. 524. 



(d) £roadicood v. Granara, 10 Hx. (h) Per Erie, C. J. (Ex. Ch.), 

 417. Cashill V. TFric/Jit, 2 Jur., N. S, 



(e) Cross v. Andreics, Cro. Eliz. 1072. 



622. (0 L. R. 6 C. P. 515 ; 40 L. J., 



(f) j\Iorrjan v. Havoj, 30 L. J., C P. 93; 25 L. T., N. S. 93. 

 ' Ex. 131. Hee also Jones v. Jackson, 29 L. T., 



(g) Armistead t. White, 20 L. J., N. S. 399. 



