NEGLECT TO DEPOSIT IN SAFE. 123 When the plaintiff was ready to leave he packed his trunk, in which the package then was, delivered up the key of his room to the clerk, having locked the door, stated to the book-keeper he was going to leave on the first train, and ordered his trunk brought down immediately. in the basement and returned in a few moments and learned that his trunk had not been brought down. It was found that the room had been entered, the trunk broken open and the package stolen. The defendant kept a safe which plaintiff knew of. The value of the stolen articles was $1,856, for which plaintiff recovered judgment. On appeal it was held that defendant could not be held responsible for a refusal to receive; but that there was a "neglect to deposit" within the meaning of the inn-keeper's Act of 1855.1 The plaintiff went to an eating-saloon statute. In the opinion of Peckham, J., he says: "The package contained the jewels and ornaments sued for; but the plaintiff did not state its contents, nor did the book-keeper inquire what it contained. I think this was a 'neglect to deposit,' within the meaning of the The book-keeper did not know that money, jewelry or ornaments had been offered him. Hence, he did not refuse to receive them. Suppose this package had been of the size of an ordinary trunk; would the clerk have been compelled to receive it? Clearly not; because, first, there was nothing to notify him that it contained money, etc.; second, so large a package was not within the meaning of the statute; no safe would probably have apartments to receive it. There was nothing about this package to indicate that Bendetson vs. French, 46 N. Y., 266; I, it was not appropriately sent to the room of the guest The defendant should not be held to the responsibility of refusing to receive money, jewels, etc., unless he did it knowingly. * * The burden rests with the guest to make this deposit. He neither made nor offered to make it, within the meaning of the statute. Simply offering a package of this size, without disclosing its contents, is not offering to deposit money, jewels or ornaments." This case was afterwards distinguished by Earl, J., who put it on the ground that the guest had surrendered up his room and placed it in the control of the landlord; he had asked to have his trunk brought down immediately, and but for the neglect of the hotel clerk to attend to this order at once, the theft could not have been committed.' In this latter case of Rosenplanter vs. Roselle, the plaintiff, who was en route to a watering place, stopped at a hotel, arriving just in time for a late dinner. While she was at the table her trunk was broken into in her room and jewelry stolen. An iron was found by detectives in one of the servant's rooms which corresponded with marks on the trunk. The defendant claimed exemption under the statute, having furnished a safe and posted the required notice, and it was contended that the plaintiff had neglected to deposit after an opportunity so to do. The court said: "There must be a brief period after the arrival of a guest at a hotel before he can make the deposit. and during this brief period the statute affords the hotel keeper no protection. But in every case where the guest has an opportunity to make the deposit and does not make See Rosenplanter vs. Roselle. 54 N. Y., 264; I, statute. CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE. 125 it, he neglects to make it within the meaning of the To neglect means to omit, as to neglect business, or payment, or duty, or work, and is generally used in this sense. It does not generally imply carelessness, or imprudence, but simply an omission to do or perform some duty or act. It is manifestly in this sense that it is used in this statute. To hold that the guest must be guilty of some actual negligence in not making the deposit would be substantially to nullify this statute.-The true rule undoubtedly is as above stated, that it is the duty of the guest to make the deposit whenever he has time and opportunity to do so. This rule may be inconvenient to guests, but the statute was not intended for their benefit. It was for the protection of the hotel keepers." Accordingly the defendant was held to be fully exon erated from all liability. CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE. This statute has been construed by Earl, J., to apply to all money and jewels which a guest had with him on his journey.' He said: "The law is settled in this State that if a guest, on retiring to bed at night,' removes a watch or jewelry from his person, or leaves money in his pockets and neglects to deposit the same in the safe provided for that purpose, he cannot hold the landlord liable for the loss of the same. Courts in construing a statute must seek for the intention of the law-makers, and they must seek for it in the language used. They must consider all parts of the statute, and so far as possible give force and effect to all the language used, and so far as the language will 1, Rosenplanter vs. Roselle, 54 N. Y., 264; permit, they should give such a construction as will make the statute just and reasonably convenient. But if, after the language has been attentively considered with the aid of such circumstances as the canons of construction, sanctioned by the law, allow to be consulted, the statute is found to be somewhat impracticable, inconvenient, harsh or unjust, the courts have no alternative but to enforce and uphold it as they find it, and leave it to the legislature to remedy the mischief by amendment or repeal." THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE CONSTRUED. The New Jersey statute, as to an inn-keeper providing a safe to relieve himself from his common law responsibility, is identical with the New York statute, and its legal construction by the Court of Appeals in this State is very important. In the case of Hyatt vs. Taylor, (42 N. Y., 258;) this statute was judicially construed. It appeared that the action was brought to recover for the loss of money, coupons, two gold studs, and two gold pins, alleged to have been stolen from plaintiff's room, while a guest at the inn of defendants at Jersey City, New Jersey. The defense proved on the trial that a safe had been' provided in the house for the deposit of money and valuables, notice whereof was duly given by putting up printed copies in the rooms of guests, and defendants rested on an act of the New Jersey legislature, providing that if the hotel keeper should furnish a safe for the safe keeping of any money, jewels or ornaments of his guests, or boarders, and should post notices to that effect in their rooms, then if the guest or boarder 1, Rosenplanter vs. Roselle, supra; CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE. 127 neglected to deposit such money, jewels or ornaments in such safe, the hotel proprietor should not be liable for loss sustained by theft or otherwise. The plaintiff recovered before a jury, and the General Term ordered a new trial; (see 51 Barbour, 632;) the Court of Appeals affirmed the General Term order and ordered judgment absolute for defendant. In the opinion of Woodruff, J., he says: "Neither the rules of the common law touching the responsibility of inn-keepers, nor the principles governing the interpretation of statutes are in any doubt. The legislature is the sole judge of the question of discretion; whether it is wise or reasonable to modify the common law responsibility of inn-keepers by permitting them to take into their actual custody in their place of safe deposit, all money, jewelry and ornaments, for the safety of which the guests desire to hold them liable, rests purely upon the legislative estimate of what public policy and a regard for their protection against the contingency of loss requires. So also the question whether possible temporary inconvenience to guests should outweigh the reasonable right of the inn-keeper to guard property of this description, that he may in that respect, be safe in his business, is purely for the legislature. Who shall say that the convenience as well as the protection of the inn-keeper was not deemed by the legislature as important as the temporary convenience of his guest? Who shall say that the evil which the legislature intended to guard against, was simply the danger that the inn-keeper might be subjected to a loss of more money, or more jewelry, or more ornaments than the convenience of his guest reasonably required? And when it is asked, ΤΟ |