206 



INNKEEPERS, VETERINARY SURGEONS, ETC. 



Not rebutted 

 by stables 

 being out of 

 bis control. 



A guest's 

 <joods not 

 aistrainable. 



Even "wbere 

 he is accom- 

 modated out 

 of the inn. 



Or uses a 

 stable pro- 

 vided for the 



And it must be borne in mind that, tbough there be a 

 private arrangement between the innkeeper and the keeper 

 of the inn stables or hostler, and the result of that arrange- 

 ment be that as between him and the innlieeper, the imi' 

 keeper has lost all control over the stables, yet as between 

 the iiiiikeeper and his guest no such private arrangement can 

 be recognized, and the innlieeper'' s liability towards him for 

 injury done to the horse remains unimpaired (?/). 



For the security and protection of travellers, inns are 

 allowed certain privileges, such as that the horse and goods 

 of the guest cannot be distrained, &c. (x). 



If an innlieeper takes his guests to rooms that he has pro- 

 vided for him, on account of not having sufficient room in 

 his inn, these rooms are privileged from distress (y). 



So also if a guest's horse is put into a stable provided 

 for a particular occasion, it cannot be distrained. Formerly, 

 however, a different view was taken in a similar case. For 

 where the tenant of a stable had sub-let it to an innkeeper 

 during races, and the horses of a guest were put into it and 



Bench, that in such case there was a 

 presumption of negligence on the part 

 of the innkeeper or his servants ; but 

 that this presumption might be re- 

 butted by giviug proof of such skiKul 

 management ou his or their part as to 

 convince the jury that the damage 

 could not have been occasioned by the 

 negligence imputed. But a material 

 difference will be found in the report 

 of the facts of this case in 7 Jur. 

 10.57, for it is there stated, that 

 *' there was no evidence of the man- 

 ner in which the horse received the 

 injury for which the action was 

 brought." It appears that the only 

 report of this case which was seen by 

 the Court, when giving judgment in 

 the case of Morgan v. Eavcy, was 

 that of the Jurist, and that Pollock, 

 C.B., founded the only possible re- 

 concilement of JJrnv^on v. Chamney 

 with the law upon this point, which 

 is the very point of discrepancy 

 between the Jurist and the other 

 reports. He said, "The only case 

 which points the other way is that of 

 Dnivson v. Chamncy^ aud according 

 to the report of that case in 7 Jur. 

 10fi7, there was no evidence of the 

 mauner in which the horse received 

 the injiu'y for which the action was 

 bronglit ; and this may be the ex- 



planation of that case, for though the 

 damage happening to the horse from 

 what occurred in the stable might be 

 evidence of default or neglect, still it 

 was not shown how the damage arose, 

 aud it was not even shown that it 

 arose from what occurred in the 

 stable. It might have arisen from 

 something which had occurred long 

 prior to the horse being put into the 

 custody of the innkeeper. That 

 would distinguish this case, and re- 

 concile aU the cases with the general 

 cm-rent of authority." It matters 

 not indeed, so far as the law is con- 

 cerned, which report of the case of 

 Dawson v. Chnmncy is authentic, for 

 if that contained in the L. J. and 

 Q. B. Reports is the correct one, it 

 has been overruled by Morgan v. 

 Mavey ; and if that of the Jurist is 

 to be taken, it does not establish the 

 point that iu case of loss to the guest, 

 the presumption of negligence on 

 the part of the innkeeper can be 

 rebutted, otherwise than by proof of 

 actual negligence on the part of the 

 guest. 



{«.) Bather v. Say, 32 L. J., E.x. 

 171; 8L. T.,N. S. 205. 



(x) 1 Rol. Abr. 668 ; Co. Litt.47. 



(y) See per Pollock, C.B., JTil- 

 UamsY. Holmes, 22 L. J., Ex. 284. 



