INNKEEPER. 221 



an Iiinhecper wlio volimtarily leaves open the gates of Ms 

 close, whereby the Horse strays out and so is lost or 

 stolen («). 



But he is answerable if he has put the Horse out to grass Horse out at 

 without the owner requiring him to do so («) . And where f^^^^ without 

 an Innkeeper took in a Horse and gig on a Fair day, and desire, 

 the Hostler, without the Gruest's permission, placed the gig 

 outside the Inn-yard, in the part of the street in which the 

 carriages at the Inn were usually placed on Fair days, and 

 the gig was stolen thence, the Court of King's Bench held 

 the Innkeeper VQS])on?>\h\Q. And Mr. Justice Taunton said, 

 " It does not appear that the gig was put in this place at 

 all at the request or instance of the plaintiff ; the place is 

 therefore a part of the Inn ; for the defendant by his con- 

 duct treats it as such. If he would wish to protect himself, 

 he should have told the plaintiff that he had no room in 

 his yard, and that he would put the gig in the street, but 

 could not be answerable for it ; not having done so, he is 

 bound by his common law liability " {t). 



It is said in Calye's case {u), that an Innliceper'' s liability Where a 

 is confined to " bona et catalla^'' and that he is not answer- i^^u^^re?"^^^ 

 able if the Guest himself is beaten, as that is not a damage 

 to " hona et catalla.^^ But it seems that this statement 

 must be simply taken to mean that the Innkeeper is not 

 bound to insure his Guest ; for in a recent case it was held 

 that it is the duty of an Innkeeper to take reasonable care 

 of the persons of his Guests, so that they are not injured by 

 reason of a want of such care on his part whilst they are in 

 the Inn as his Guests [x) . Where the Guesfs Horse has 

 been beaten, the Innkeeper was held liable ; and it appeared 

 that it had been injured by having been taken out of the 

 Inn and immoderately ridden and whipped, though it did 

 not appear by whom (//) . 



Where a Guest's Horse is injured, there is always a Presumption 

 presumption of negligence against the Innkeeper. It is of negligence 

 questionable, indeed, if in any case this presumption can innkeeper.^ 

 be rebutted without proof of actual negligence on the part 

 of the Guest. The case of Bauson v. Chamney {z) has been 



(s) Bao. Abr. tit. Inns and Inn- S. C. 8 Co. 32. 



keepers; Calye's case, 8 Coke, 32 b ; {x) Sandys v. Florence, 47 L. J., 



Moor, 1229 ; Pop. 127 ; Moslcy v. C. P. 598, per Lindley, J. 



Fosset, 1 Rol. Abr. 3 ; 4 Leon. 96 ; (//) Stannion v. Davis, 1 Salk. 



2 Brownl. 255 ; Richmond v. Smith, 404 ; S. C. 6 Mod. 323. See also 



S. B. & C. 11. Bather v. Bay, 32 L. J., Ex. 171 ; 



(/■) Junes V. Tyler, 1 A. & E. 522; 2 H. & C. 14. 



S. C. 3 N. & M. 576. (z) Dawson v. Chamnei/, 13 L. J., 



(m) Calye's case, S Rep. 32 a; Q. B. 33; 6'. C, 5 Q. B'. 165; S. C. 



