Detailed Explanation

 Cash and Carry!, implicates the following five  laws:

 

            1. A renter pays for usage rights: hence is liable for theft or loss [Choshen Mishpat 307: 1]

             2.  A borrower may use the article at no cost: hence assumes the highest degree of accountability and is liable even for accidental occurrences [Choshen Mishpat 340:1]. 

See Issue 80 for the T.L.C. {Trustee Liability Chart}

  3. Permitting non-household members and unauthorized personnel entry to the location where the trust is stored is negligence. As such, if the trust is found to have been stolen after the trustee permitted entry into the locale within which he/she stored the trust; even an unpaid trustee would be liable to compensate the owner [Choshen Mishpat 291: 21 Rema].

4. A borrower, and paid trustee (and renter) must be extra vigilant when initiating directives which could adversely affect the trust

    Consider the following scenario:

  A paid B to safeguard his hops. B had a pile of his own hops as well.
 

B orders his apprentice to pour his hops into the beer without defining from which pile he should  take. Apprentice inadvertently poured A's hops into the beer. B should have specifically defined from which pile the apprentice should take; hence, is liable to reimburse A for the hops [Choshen Mishpat 291: 25].

5. One is liable for directing a confirmed thief or informer to another's assets  [Choshen Mishpat 388]

Application

The Millers functioned as renters and borrowers; renters on the headpiece and borrowers on the brooch.  A borrower is liable for theft even if he or she could not have prevented it. A renter is liable for theft  if he or she could have prevented it

Moreover, as a trustee, they are required to ensure that no personnel unauthorized by the owners of the article enter the area unsupervised which they failed to do. 

Even if one were to argue that they would not have imagined the landlord to show up when they were gone, as a paid trustee and a borrower, they are required to leave clear instructions for the landlord that he may not bring in his workers while they are not present, which they failed to do.

Consequently, the Millers would be liable to reimburse the owners of the brooch and headpiece for the loss.

They would be able to hold the landlord liable to reimburse them for the loss of money as well as the costs of the brooch and headpiece only if the landlord should have known that his workers were crooks.

[Certainly, the thieves themselves are required to return the stolen goods]