210 



INNKEEPERS, VETEEINARY SURGEONS, ETC. 



He cannot 

 use a horse 

 he detains. 



He could not 

 formerly sell 

 a horse he 

 detained. 



But may now 

 sell horse 

 after si.\ 

 weeks. 



the innkeeper should not give him any more food, as he 

 would not be responsible for it, and the question was, 

 whether the owner was chargeable for the food given after 

 this direction, Chief Justice Holt was at first inclined to 

 consider this a discharge, and that the horse, though he 

 might be retained by the innkeeper, was but in the nature 

 of a distress, and that being in the custody of the innkeeper 

 in his inn, it was a. pound covert, and the horse consequently 

 ought to be maintained at his peril. However,^ he after- 

 wards changed his opinion, and directed that this was no 

 discharge ; for then any innkeeper might be deceived, and 

 his security would be lessened (a). But his first opinion 

 appears to be consistent with the law (b). 



Where an innkeeper detains a horse for its meat he can- 

 not use it, because he detains it as in the custody of the law, 

 and the detention is in the nature of a distress, which can- 

 not be used by the distrainor (c). 



An innkeeper could not formerly sell the horse he de- 

 tained for his meat and so pay himself, because, as the 

 Court said in Jones v. Thurloe, " he is not to be his own 

 carver" {d). And even if the horse "eat out the price of 

 its head," that is, consume as much as it is worth, he could 

 not sell it, except he lived in London or Exeter, where by 

 the custom of those places, if the horse is the property of 

 the guest, he may take it as his own upon the reasonable 

 appraisement of four of his neighbours (e). 



But now, by the Innkeepers Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict, 

 c. 38), s. 1, "the landlord, proprietor, keeper, or manager 

 of any hotel, inn, or licensed public-house shall, in addition 

 to his ordinary lien, have the right absolutely to sell and 

 dispose by public auction of any goods, chattels, carriages, 

 horses, wares, or merchandise which may have been de- 

 posited with him, or left in the house he keeps, or in the 

 coach-house, stable, stable-yard, or other premises appur- 

 tenant or belonging thereunto, where the person depositing 

 or leaving such goods, chattels, carriages, horses, wares, or 



[a) Gelher v. Berlcdey, Skin. 648 ; 

 and see Scarfe v. Morgan, 4 M. & 

 ■\V. 270. 



(b) Co. Litt. 47 b; British E>iipi re 

 ShippiJiri Co. V. Somes, 28 L. J., (i. R. 

 220; 8. C. 30 L. J., Q. B. 229— 

 Ex. Ch. Seo also Scarfe v. Morgan, 

 i M. & "\V. 279, 284. 



[e) ll'estbrook v. Griffith, Moor. 

 870 ; Robinson v. Walter, 3 Eulstr. 



270; Bac. Abr. tit. Inns and Inn- 

 keepers. 



(rf) Jones X. Thurloe, 8 Mod. 172 ; 

 S. C-, Jo-nes v. Pcarle, Str. 656. 



{e) Baldway v. Ouster, 1 Vent. 

 71 ; Westbrook y. Griffith, Moor. 

 87G ; Moss y. Toienseiid, 1 Bidstr. 

 207 ; Robinson v. Jf'alter, 3 Bulstr. 

 270 ; Bac. Abr. tit. Inns and Inn- 

 keepers. 



