202 



INNKEEPERS, VETERINARY SURGEONS, ETC. 



Salaried 

 manager not 

 liable as inn- 



Goods to 

 which his 

 liability 

 extends. 



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

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

 where the loss shall have heen occasioned "through the 

 wilful act, default or neglect of the innkeeper, 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 innkeeper may require, as a condition of liability, " that 

 such goods or property shall be deposited in a box or other 

 receptacle fastened and sealed by the person depositing the 

 same." By section 3, the innkeeper 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 section 1 of the 

 26 & 27 Vict. c. 41, must be read with " act " only, and 

 not also with " fault or neglect " {q). A mere verbal error 

 in a copy of section 1 of the Act, exhibited for the purpose 

 of limiting an innkeeper's liability, will not vitiate the 

 notice so as to make it inefi'ectual, provided the notice states 

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

 material portion of the statute will render the notice 

 inefi'ectual to protect the innkeeper (r). 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 (s). 



The salaried manager of an hotel belonging to a company 

 is not an innkeeper, so as to be by law responsible for the 

 goods and property of the guests, although the usual licence 

 has been granted to him personally {t). 



An innkeeper 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 guest («) ; nor before 

 the Innkeepers' Liability Act (x) was passed was he com- 

 pellable to receive every description of goods with a guest, 

 but only such as a person ordinarily travels with (y). But 



[q) Squire r. Wheeler, 16 L. T., 

 N. S. 93, per Byles, J. 



()•) Spice V. Bacon, 2 Q. B. D. 

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

 N. S. 896. 



(s) Ibid. 



k) Dixon .-. Birch, L. E , 8 Ex. 



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

 N. S. 360. 



(ti) Per Bayley, J., Richmond v. 

 Smith, 8 B. & C. 9. 



(x) 26 & 27 Vict. c. 41. 



[y) ISroadwoodr. Granara, 10 Ex. 

 417. 



