INNKEEPER. 



201 



If an innkeeper who has room in his house refuse to 

 receive a traveller, after a tender or an attempted tender of 

 a reasonable sum for his accommodation, he may be indicted 

 for it, and the indictment must state that the person refused 

 was a traveller (A). 



And it is no defence for the innkeeper that the guest 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 innkeejoer had no 

 right to insist upon knowing these particulars (^). 



But although an innkeeper cannot refuse a person who 

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

 the inn drunk, or behaves in an indecent or improper 

 manner (k). 



An action lies to recover compensation for any injury in 

 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 

 liable to an action for refusing to supply a chaise and horses 

 to enable his guest to pursue his journey, although they be 

 disengaged and a reasonable sum be tendered for them {m). 



But although a traveller is entitled to reasonable accom- 

 modation in an inn, he is not entitled to select a particular 

 apartment, or to insist on occupying a bedroom for the 

 purpose of sitting up all night, so long as the innkeeper is 

 wdling and offers to furnish him with a proper room for 

 that purpose (w) ; 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 (o). 



An innkeeper was formerly prima facie liable to any 

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

 King's enemies (p). But by the 26 & 27 Vict. c. 41, s. 1, 

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

 goods or property brought to his inn, not being a horse or 



May be in- 

 dicted for 

 refusing. 



What held to 

 be no defence. 



Sickness, 



drunkenness, 



&c. 



Action for 

 compensa- 

 tion. 



Not liable for 

 refusing to 

 supply post- 

 horses. 



Traveller not 

 entitled to 

 select particu- 

 lar apart- 

 ments. 



Liability of 

 innkeeper 

 limited by 

 26 & 27 Vict, 

 c. 41. 



(A) FeJl Y. Enight, 8 M. & W. 

 276 ; Rex t. Ivem, 7 C. & P. 219 ; 

 Mex V. Luellin, 12 Mod. 445. 



(i) Sex T. Ivens, 7 C. & P. 213. 



\lc) Bex V. Luellin, 12 Mod. 445 ; 

 and see Reg. v. Rymer, L. E., 2 Q. 

 B. D. 136; 46 L. J., M. C. 108; 

 35 L. T., N. S. 774; 25 W. E. 

 415. 



[l) Hawthorn v. Hammond, 1 C. 

 & K. 407 ; Lane v. Cotton, 1 Salk. 



18 ; Oollin's case, Godb. 346 ; Palm. 

 374; 2 Eol. Eep. 345; Newton y. 

 Trigg, 1 Show. 270. 



(m) Dicas v. Hides, 1 Stark. 247. 



(«) I'ell V. Xnight, 8 M. &. W. 

 269. 



(o) Surgess v. Clements, 4 M. & S. 

 306; 16 E. E. 473. 



(p) Per Bayley, J., Richmond y. 

 i^mith, 8 B. & C. 9. 



