INNKEEPER. 



205 



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

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

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

 bound by his common law liability " (n). 



It is said in Calye's case (o), that an innkeeper's liability 

 is confined to " bona et catalla," and that he is not answer- 

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

 to " bona et catalla." But it seems that this statement 

 must be simply taken to mean that the innJaHper 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 {p). Where the guest's horse has been 

 beaten, the innkeepier 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 (3). 



"Where a guest's horse is injured, there is always a pre- 

 sumption of negligence against the innkeeper. It is 

 questionable, indeed, if in any case this presumption can 

 be rebutted without proof of actual negligence on the part 

 of the guest. The case of Bawson v. Chamneij (r) has been 

 relied upon to show that this presumption may be rebutted 

 by giving proof of such skilful management on the part of 

 the innkeeper, as to convince the jury that the damage 

 could not have been occasioned by the negligence imputed. 

 But this view of the law was held to be untenable by 

 Pollock, C.B., in the case of Morgan v. Ravey («), who, in 

 delivering the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, said, 

 " We think the cases show there is default in the innkeeper 

 wherever there is a loss not arising from the plaintiff's 

 negligence, the act of God, or the Queen's enemies " it). 



"Where a 

 guest's person 

 or horse is 

 injured. 



Presumption 

 of negligence 

 against the 

 innkeeper. 



(n) Jones Y. TyUr, 1A.&E.522; 

 S. G. 3 N. & M. 576. 



(0) Calye's case, 8 Eep. 32 a ; 

 8. C. 8 Co. 32. 



(jo) Sandys t. Fhrenee, 47 L. J., 

 C. P. 598, per Lindley, J. See also 

 Walker v. Midland Rail. Co., 55 

 L. T., N. S. 489. 



{q) Stannion t. Davis, 1 Salk. 

 404 ; S. C. 6 Mod. 323. See also 

 Bather v. Day, 32 L. J., Ex. 171 ; 

 2 H. & C. 14. 



()•) Dawson v. Chamney, 13 L. J., 

 a. B. 33 ■ S. C.b Q. B. 165 ; S. G. 



7 Jur. 1037. See also Gashill v. 

 Wright, 2 Jur., N. S. 1072. 



(s) Morgan v. Rwvey, 6 H. & N. 

 265; 8. G. 30 L. J., Ex. 131. 



[t) According to the report of the 

 «ase of Daivson v. Chamney, in 13 L. 

 J., Q. B. 33, and in 5 Q. B. 164, the 

 horse of the guest was left at the 

 defendant's inn on a market day, and 

 given in charge to the ostler, who 

 placed it in a stall where there was 

 another horse, which kicked it, and 

 so inflicted an injury. On these facts 

 it was held by the Court of Queen's 



