
    Gustav Jacobi, Appellant, v. Tilly Haynes, Respondent.
    (New York Common Pleas
    Additional General Term,
    August, 1895.)
    The mere fact that one. guest at a hotel has been seen in company with another in the rdom of the latter by a chambermaid is no excuse for her act in subsequently unlocking the door of such room and admitting him thereto, such as to relieve the landlord of responsibility for the loss of goods taken from the room by the 'person so. admitted.
    Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the District . Court of the fourth judicial district of the city of New York, rendered by the justice thereof, Without a jury.
    The nature of the action and the material facts are stated in the opinion:
    
      Hoff mam, <& Hoff mam, (Chamles I. Hoffmam,,'of counsel), for appellant.
    
      William J. Farnmimg, for respondent.
   Giegebich, J.

This action was brought against the proprietor of a hotel to recover the value of goods which were taken from the room of a guest named Miroy, the plaintiff’s "assignor, by a fellow guest, one Roberts, who was allowed by a chambermaid to enter the room. , •

The only question presented is whether, upon the facts shown, the defendant or his servants had sufficient reason for believing that'Roberts Was ¡authorized by Miroy.to enter the. room, or whether Roberts was in fact so authorized.

It, is not. claimed that the chambermaid, who opened the • dóoi; /for Roberts at his request tyas ever instructed by Miroyto admit any one to his room..' The circumstances relied upon by the defendant as excusing or warranting such act on her - . part are as follows: She had seen Roberts in the room several times with Miroy handling the goods in question and talking, with him concerning them. ' Tapferwein, the head porter, had gone to the room,, at the request of a man whom he sup; ■ posed to be Roberts, to see Miroy concerning the purchase of one of the articles. Frost, the manager of the hotel,, was told by Miroy that he had authorized Roberts to sell goods from the.. samples in question, but this was said in an interview held after ' the goods had been taken. Miroy denied having said this, which denial the justice below appears, from the memorandum decision submitted, to have overlooked. . This is not important, .however, because, assuming that Miroy did tell Frost that he had authorized Roberts to sell goods from the samples, it does not follow that he had given him authority to take away, those samples, especially in view of What was done in Tapferwein’s case, in ; which Roberts’' only act was to bring forward an , intending purchaser, and still less authority to have access to; his róóm¿ which contained other property besides the samples in question, all of which'was taken. ■¿,-

It impresses us that the whole difficulty originated in the inexcusable acts of the chambermaid. She admitted one guest to the room of another guest, because, as she said, she had seen them together there on' several occasions. If that' should be deemed’ sufficient reason for unlocking the door^ no ■ man’s goods would be safe, in his room in- a hotel unless he shunned, all. intercourse, with his fellow guests. The defendant, in the attempt to evade responsibility for this negligent act of his.servant, subsequently collects and sets, up in defense various fapts. These facts, however, cannot be regarded .as \ constituting a1 ground for her act, for one reason, because it does.not appear that she had'knowledge of them ;■ neither,.as .already said, do ' they show that Miroy had. in fact authorized " Roberts to enter his. room.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs' to the appellant to abide the event.

Bischoff; j., concurs.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.  