102 IIOUSI; W.MUIANM. 



with or standing; at livory in the stable or fields 

 ocoujiiod l)y sufli iimkoopcr. 



Whore goods or cliattels of a guest have been 

 aotually dflivorod to an innkoopcr, or to liis sor- 

 vauts, the latter cannot discharge himself from 

 responsibility by showing that the goods were 

 afterwards stolen outside the inn, if he hiraself 

 put them in the si^ot from whence they wore 

 taken. In Jones v. Tyler (r) the facts were as 

 Liability of foUows : — Tho plaintiff, a farmer, drove his horse 

 foriiis'' "^ find gig to an inn on a market da}-, and the ostler 

 carriage ^°"^ *^^^ liorse out of tho gig and put it into a 

 stable, lie then placed the gig outside of the inn 

 yard, in a ]iart of the open street, where tho inn- 

 keeper was in the habit of placing the carriages of 

 his guests on market days, and tlie gig was stolen 

 liy some person and could not be found. It was 

 lield that the innkeeper was responsible for the 

 loss. Mr. Justice Taunton said, "If tho innkeeper 

 wished to protect himself ho should have told the 

 plaintiff he had no room in his yard, and that ho 

 would put the gig in tlie street, Init c«juld not bo 

 answerable for it. Not having done so, h'^ is 

 ])ound by liis common law liability." An inn- 

 keeper is liable for an injury done to u h<»rse if 

 taken (»ut of the inn ;nid iiiiiiioderately ridden and 

 whipped, though it may not appear by whom {d). 



(e) 1 A. Jl !•:. .VJ2 ; .V. T., .3 N. & M. 676. 

 (rf) Stituniun v. Davim, 1 Salk. KU. 



