re born of the
second marriage they are legitimate as long as they live in
Connecticut, illegitimate should they go to New York. One of the
latest legal writers on this difficult subject says: "Foreign divorce
judgments granted in states where the plaintiff had obtained an
actual, bona fide residence, will doubtless continue to be recognized
by the great majority of our states, but the states of New York,
California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, South Carolina,
Pennsylvania, and possibly some other states, which have adopted the
extreme New York doctrine, are permitted by the rule established in
the Haddock case--a decision by the Supreme Court of the United
States--to continue to refuse recognition of divorce judgments in
other states."

=Innkeeper.=--An innkeeper's house is a public place to which
travelers may resort. He cannot therefore prohibit persons who come
under that character in a proper manner and at suitable times from
entering, so long as he can accommodate them. He is not obliged to
receive one who cannot pay for his entertainment. Indeed, he must
exclude some persons who apply, notably thieves. He can refuse to
admit all whom he has reason to believe will disturb the peace and
safety of his guests; and can afterward exclude all who, though
admitted, prove to be noisy and disturbers of the comfort and safety
of others. And if having a stable he is under the same obligation to
receive and care for horses as he is to receive the person to whom
they belong. Again, he is not required to provide a guest with the
precise room he may select, but only reasonable and proper
accommodations. If he refuses to do so he is liable in law to the
applicant.

In caring for the baggage of a guest, the law is not as well settled
as it might be. A competent writer has said: "They are insurers of the
property of their guests committed to their care, and are liable for
its loss, unless caused by the act of God, a public enemy, or the
neglect or fault of the owner or his servants." This strictness of
liability, it is said is necessary to protect travelers against any
collusion between the innkeeper and his servants, and to compel him to
take care that no improper persons are admitted into his house. His
charge for the entertainment of his guests is sufficient to cover this
risk; he also has a lien on their property entrusted to his care to
indemnify him against loss.

By statute in many states innkeepers are exempt f