ABSTRACT
In the Exchequer Division of the High Court of Justice last week, the case of Spice v. Bacon was heard. For the defence, reliance was placed on the Act 26 and 27 Vic., cap. 41, amending the law respecting the liability of innkeepers in respect of the goods of their guests. The Lord Chief Baron, in summing up, said the case was one of ordinary occur-rence, but it involved questions of great and general importance. The jury retired to consider their verdict, and, after a brief absence, arrived at the following findings on questions submitted to them by the learned judge: – That the plaintiff was guilty of negligence or breach of duty in not locking his door, which caused, or materially conduced to, the loss of his property. The decision is supported to some extent by the authority of old cases, in which the word “traveller” was generally used when the rights and duties of innkeepers were under discussion.
