Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 13.djvu/92

82 N I N N resident in the neighbourhood of the inn is not a traveller. An innkeeper may be indicted for refusing accommodation to a traveller, who may also of course have a remedy by civil action. To render an innkeeper liable for loss of goods at common law, the following are stated by Chitty (Laiv of Contracts) to be necessary conditions : (1) that the inn be a "common "inn; (2) that the guest be a traveller or passenger ; (3) that the goods or chattels must be in the inn, or at all events under the protection of the innkeeper as such; (4) that there be default on the part of the innkeeper, which is, however, implied in all cases not arising from the negligence of the guest, the act of God, or of the queen s enemies. An innkeeper re ceiving goods in any other capacity, e.g., as a warehouse man or generally as bailee, or allowing the guest exclusive possession of a room for special purposes, is not liable for loss. Nor is the innkeeper liable for loss of goods by the theft of the guest s servant or companion, or by the negligence of the guest himself. A recent Act, 26 <fe 27 Viet. c. 4, limits the liability of the innkeeper by the following provisions : No innkeeper shall be liable to make good loss or injury to goods or property (not being a horse, or other live animal, or gear appertaining thereto, or a carriage) to a greater sum than .30, ex cept in the following cases (1) when the loss has been caused by the default or neglect of the innkeeper or his servants, (2) when such goods have been deposited expressly for safe custody with the innkeeper, who may require them to be deposited in a safe or other recep tacle and sealed by the person depositing the same. Innkeepers are not entitled to the benefit of the Act if they refuse to receive goods for safe custody, or otherwise prevent their deposit as before provided for, or if they fail to have one copy at least of the first section of the Act exhibited in a conspicuous place in the inn. The liability of innkeepers was recognized in the civil law. On the other hand, the innkeeper has a lien on the goods of his guest for the amount of his bill. It does not extend to the clothes of the guest or justify his personal detention, but it includes articles in the possession of the guest belonging to third persons, at least when they are of a kind that travellers might ordinarily be expected to have. When a professional artist living at an inn had a piano on hire, the innkeeper, who knew -it did not belong to her, was held to have no lien thereon. In a recent case the lien has been held to cover a hired piano in the possession of a family staying at an inn. In some American cases it has been held that the possession of a licence does not produce, nor does the absence of a licence prevent, the liabilities of an innkeeper at common law. An inn is dis tinguished from a boarding-house in this, that in the latter the guest is under an express contract for a certain time at a certain rate, in the former under an implied contract from day to day. Even if a boarding-house keeper entertains guests in the capacity of an innkeeper, he is not liable as such to his boarding-house guests. INNOCENT I, pope from 402 to 417, was, according to his biographer in the Liber Pontiff call s, the son of a man called Innocent of Albano ; but, according to the more trustworthy Jerome, his father was Pope Anastasius I., whom he was called by the unanimous voice of the clergy and laity to succeed. It was during his papacy that the siege of Rome by Alaric (408) took place, when, according to a doubtful anecdote of Zosimus, the ravages of plague and famine were so frightful, and divine help seemed so far off, that papal permission was granted to sacrifice and pray to the heathen deities ; the pope happened, however, to be absent from the city on a mission to Houorius at Ravenna at the time of the sack in 410. He lost no op portunity of maintaining and extending the authority of the Roman see as the ultimate resort for the settlement of all disputes ; and his still extant communications to Victricius of Rouen, Exuperius of Toulouse, Alexander of Antiocb, and others, as well as his action on the appeal made to him by Chrysostom against Theophiius of Alexandria, show that opportunities of the kind were numerous and varied. He took a decided view on the Pelagian controversy, confirming the decisions of the synod of the province of proconsular Africa held in Carthage in 41G, which had been sent to him, and also writing in the same year in a similar sense to the fathers of the Numidian synod of Mileve who, Augustine being one of their number, had addressed him. Among his letters are one to Jerome and another to John, bishop of Jerusalem, regarding annoyances to which the first-named had been subjected by the Pelagians at Beth lehem. He died March 12, 417, and in the Romish Church is commemorated as a confessor along with Saints Nazarius, Celsus, and Victor, martyrs, on July 28. His successor was Zosimus. INNOCENT II., pope from 1130 to 1143, whose family name was Paparesci, his own baptismal name being Gregory, was probably one of the clergy in personal attendance on the antipope Clement III. (Guibert of Ravenna). By Pas chal II. he was created cardinal-deacon. In this capacity he accompanied Pope Gelasius II. when driven into France ; and by Calixtus II. he was employed on various important missions, such as on that to Worms for concluding the peace concordat with the emperor in 1122, and on that to France in 1123. On February 14, 1130, he was hurriedly chosen to succeed Honorius II. ; soon afterwards an opposition asserted itself which issued in the counter-elec tion of Pietro Pierleoni as Pope Anacletus II. Unable to maintain his position in Rome, Innocent took ship for Pisa, and thence sailed by Genoa to France, where the influence of Bernard of Clairvaux readily secured his cordial recogni tion by the clergy and the court ; in October of the same year he was duly acknowledged by Lothaire of Germany and his bishops at the synod of Wiirzburg. In January 1131 he had also a favourable interview with Henry II. of England; and in August 1132 Lothaire undertook an expedition to Italy for the double purpose of being crowned by the pope, and of setting aside the antipope. The coronation ultimately took place in the Lateran church (June 4, 1133), but otherwise the expedition proved abor tive. A second expedition by Lothaire in 1136 was not more decisive in its results, and the protracted struggle between the rival pontiffs was terminated only by the death of Anacletus on January 25, 1138. By the Lateran council of 1139, at which Roger of Sicily, Innocent s most uncompromising foe, was excommunicated, peace was at last restored to the church. The remaining years of this pope s life were almost as barren of permanent results as the first had been ; his efforts to undo the mischief wrought in Rome by the long schism were almost entirely neutralized by a struggle with the town of Tivoli in which he became involved, and by a quarrel with Louis VII. of France, in the course of which that kingdom was laid under an interdict. Innocent died September 23, 1143, and was succeeded by Celestine II. The doctrinal questions in which he was called on to interfere were those connected with the names of Abelard and Arnold of Brescia. INNOCENT III., pope from 1198 to 121G, by far the most remarkable of the popes who have reigned under this name, and, if Gregory VII. is excepted, perhaps the greatest of all who have occupied the see of St Peter, was born at Anagni about 11 GO. His father, Count Trasimundo of Segni, was a member of the famous house of Conti, from which nine popes, including Gregory IX., Alexander IV., and Innocent XIII., have sprung; his mother, Claricia,