[1704] Mor 9238
Subject_1 NAUTĘ, CAUPONES, STABULARII.
Date: Thomas Hay
v.
James Williamson
24 June 1704
Case No.No 6.
A person who lost his purse in an inn, not having previously informed the inn-keeper of it, found to have no recourse on the inn-keeper.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Thomas Hay, sheriff clerk of Aberdeen, pursues Mr James Williamson inn-keeper in Kinghorn, that returning from Edinburgh, after the parliament 1700, with the Earl of Errol going north, and lodging all night at his house, he had a purse containing fifty guineas stolen from him, and therefore, on the Prætor's
edict ut nautæ caupones stabularii recepta et inveeta resituant, he convened him to make up the damage. Alleged, That law being penal, must be strictly interpreted, and can only be understood of things shewn to the skipper, or master of the house; or, 2do, of things so bulky as are visible, and cannot escape observation, as trunks, cloakbags, clothes, &c.; or, 3tio, of thngs not discoverable, but kept in pockets, as jewels, rings, gold, &c. and either shewn or trusted to the care or the landlord; in all which cases he must be liable: and the decisions finding them so among us are of that kind, as when Patrick Steil was decerned for the price of the Master of Forbes's scarlet cloak; No 2. p. 9233. but this defender is in none of these cases. The Lords, before answer, allowed a conjunct probation of what money he brought out of Edinburgh with him, and when he missed it; and what care or dilligence was used by the servants for securing his chamber. And it was proven, that Mr Hay shewed his fellow travellers his purse in the evening, and found it lying empty on the table in the morning, and cried out the house deserved to be razed for such a robbery; as also that the servants offered him the key of his room, and advised him to bolt it within, so none could have access, and yet he could open it himself, in case of fire; and it was not proven that he had acquainted the house, or shewed them what he had about him. The Lords advising the cause this day, remembered, that, on the 16th of November 1667, Whitehead contra Straiton, voce Periculum the tacksman of a park was not found liable for a horse input, seeing a printed placart bore, they were to be on the master's peril; and here there was no certioration made to the inn-keeper, of what he had about him; and assoilzied the defender, and found him not in the case of the edict.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting