The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-27 00:00:00

BRIDGES V. lIAWKESWORTII.

This was an appeal against a decision of the Judge
of the County Court of Westminster, upon a case
which had been tried before him, and in which he had
given judgment for the defendant. The appeal was
heard at the sittings after last Trinity Term, when it
was argued by Mr. Gray (with whom was Mr. Heath)
for the plaintiff, and by Mr. Hake for the defendant.
The Court had taken time to consider the judgment,
which was now delivered by
Mr. Justice PATTESON, who said—This was an ap-
peal against the decision of the Judge of the 'West-

minster County Court, in a case which was brought
before him under the following circumstances :—The
defendant was a stationer, carrying on business as 21,
Charing-cross, and the plaintiff entered his shop upon
business, and seeing a parcel lying upon the floor,
he stooped and picked it up, and observing it to con
rain notes, gave it ,to defendant's apprentice, who
called the defendant, and the plaintiff then told him
what had happened. The defendant said he would
take the notes and keep them for the true owner.
The plaintiff assented. On the following morning
the plaintiff called, and, finding that the notes bad not
been claimed, a conversation ensued about advertising
them. The defendant did advertise them, bat no one
appeared to claim them. The defendant paid the
expenses of the advertisements. The plaintiff after-
wards called upon the defendant to restore them, and
offered to repay the money expended for the adver-
tisements. The defendant refused to accept this
money, and offered plaintiff 21. 10s. " for his honesty,"
which was refused. The defendant subsequently
offered the plaintiff 51, but refused to give up the
notes, saying that he had made himself liable to the
true owner, whenever that true owner should appear.
The defendant declared that he should send the notes

to his banker, and altogether refused to deliver them
to the plaintiff, though the plaintiff offered him a
satisfactory indemnity against the claims of any per-
son who demanded them as owner. On these facts

the Learned Judge of the County Court held that,
neither of the parties having any title as against the
true owner, the shopkeeper in whose shop the notes
were found had, for the purpose of protection to the
true owner, the preferable title as to possession against
the actual finder who found it there, and therefore
gave, judgment for the defendant. We have consi-
dered this case very attentively, and we think the
judgment erroneous. The notes which are the sub-
ject of this action were evidently dropped by
mere accident in the shop of the defendant
by the owner of them. The facts do not
warrant the supposition that they had been de-
posited there intentionally, nor has the case been at all
put upon that ground. The plaintiff found them on
the floor, they being manifestly lost by some one.
The general right of the finder to any article which
has been lost, as against all the world except the true
owners, was established in the case of " Aniory v.
Deiamairie," 1 Str., 505, which has never been dis-
puted. This right would clearly have accrued to the
plaintiff had the notes been picked up by him outside
the shop of the defendant ; and if he onee had the
right, the case finds that he did not intend by deliver-
ing the notes to the defendant to waive the title, if
any, which he bad to them, but they were handed to
the defendant merely for the purpose of delivering
them to the owner should he appear. Nothing that
was done afterwards has altered this state of things;
the advertisements inserted in the newspapers, refer-
ing to the defendant, had the same object. The
plaintiff has tendered the expense of these advertise-
ments to the defendant, and offered him an indem-
nity ogainst any claim to be made by the real
goner, and has demanded the notes. The case,
.herefore, resolves itself into the single point on
which it appears that the Learned Judge de-
cided it, namely, whether the circumstance of the
flutes being found inside the defendant's shop gives
him (the defendant) the right to have them as against
the plaintiff who found them. There is no authority
to be found in our law directly in point. Perhaps
the nearest case is that of " Merry v. Green, 7th M.
and W., 623,1 but it differs in many respects from

the present. We were referred in the course of the
argument to the learned work of Von Savigny, edited
by Chief Justice Perry, but even this work, full as it
is of subtle distinctions and nice reasonings, does not
afford a solution of the present question. It was well
asked en the argument, if the defendant has the right,
when did it accrue to him ? If at all, it must have
been antecedent to the finding by the plaintiff, for
that finding could not give the defendant any right.
If the notes had been accidentally kicked into the
street, and there found by some one passing by, could
it be contended that the defendant was entitled to
thorn from the mere fact of their having been origi-
nally dropped in his shop ? If the discovery had
never been communicated to the defendant, could
the real owner have had any cause of action
against him because they were found in his house ?
Certainly not. The notes never were in the custody
of the defendant, nor within the protection of his
house, before they were found, as they would have
been had they been intentionally deposited there, and
the defendant has come under no responsibility,
except from the communication made to him by the
plaintiff, the finder, and the steps taken by way of
advertisement. These steps were really taken by the
defendant as the agent of the plaintiff, and he has
been offered an indemnity, the sufficiency of which
is not disputed. We find, therefore, no circumstances
in this case to take it out of the general rule of law,
that the finder of a lost article is entitled to it as
against all persons except the real owner, and we think
that that rule must prevail, and that the Learned
Judge was mistaken in holding that the place in
which they were found makes any legal difference.
Our judgment, therefore, is, that the plaintiff is en-
titled to those notes as against the defendant, that the
judgment of the Court below must he reversed, and
Judgment given for the plaintiff for 551. The plain-
tiff, of course, will have the costs of appeal.
The judgment was at first entered for 551., the
amount of the notes actually found, but as the sum
to be recovered in the county court could not ex-
cee:i 50/ , the judgment was entered for that sum.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Justice Wightman
and a Common Jury.)
BSNNETT V. LADDROKE

A•
Mr. Bramwell and Mr. Pigott tgott appeared as
counsel for the plaintiff; fir, M. Chambers con-
.
ducted the defence.
This was an action of trespnss, occasioned by the
defendant having caused the plaintiff to be arrested
upon a charge of felony.
The plaintiff was a tailor, who had carried on bu-
siness in Sackyille-strert, and had resided in St.
John's Wood. In May last, becoming embarrassed