Louisiana capitolian. (Baton Rouge, La.) 1879-1881, 1879-02-15
BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA, FEBRUARY 49, 1873

OOlSlkA1N ~ q .ZlDl
cided. The proprietor u the mills
claimed the notes because they were
found in his rags; and when the girl
refused to surrender them, he COM
planned Of her for stealing. But the
judge decided in her favor. a similar
case is formally reportedgin tho latest
volume of Rhode Islaald Court Re-
ports. A man bought . second hand
safe ON speculation i it wassnclla rpck-
city old thing that he offered to sell it to
the blacksmith of the place for $40,
but the latter declined. Then he
engaged the blacksmith to pnt the !;
safe in repair and keep It Tor him till
he should find q buyer. IN tinkering
the safs, t9aq d haeah1 u, ataah ~
take Or oversight I'M g apsvice Ia the
sheet lining. When he returned the
safe he kept the money, and the safe
owner sued him for it. In both these
cases the courts decided that the
money belonged to the original owner,
and the finder had right to keep it
until that owner appeared and claim
ed it. The purchaser Of the rags OF
OF the safe did not get any title to
the money in them, because neither
buyer nor seller knew it was there,
nor intended sale of parcels of
money. Having no title, he could
not take the money from the finder.
Lost things belong to the person that
finds them as against every one but
the owner. There has been u case
differently decided, where q lady,
while shopping, laid her portemonnaie
Oh the counter, meaning to take it up
again as soon as sife had priced
some goods; but meantime some one
"found" it. The lady departed with
out retaining it, and the proprietor
of the store demanded it, while the
finder resisted his claim. But the
court, after looking at the case with Il
magnifying- glass, decided in favor of
the shopkeeper. For this portemon-
maize was not lost; it was deposited in
an ill-chosen, insecure place the lady
did not drop it by accident, but inten-
tionally left it where she thought it
| would be safe-in n place which was
in law in charge and care of the shop
keeper. He was held entitled to claim
it Us n depositary.
Suppose a reward is offered. The
Courts have in several cases decided
that IA adXsTtiscg'eHr asas s af'ess g .se-
and can he enforced by one who conr-
plies with it's conditions. 1t is a gen
eral offer to pay for certain services,
and if Il person accepts the offer and
renders the services before the Offer
has been withdrawn, there is II com
plctc contract. But he must have
known of the offer; ono who finds the
lost tli:,s without knowing IL reward
has been offered has no legal claim
In q case in Connecticut Il man lost :
horse, and advertised Il reward of 500
Some one found the horse and brOugll
him home to the owner without hav
ing heard of the reward, and tn
owner gave him So for his trouble
Afterward the finder saw the advel
tisement, and was naturally dis
: uleascd. He sued for the other Sls
but the Court decided against hin
Unless the finder is influenced by tn
offer to undertake the search, there
s. no ground for saying that the loser
n under any agreement to pay. There
l. fore, if a bank clerk should drop
IS money parcel, and some one folloy
l. ing soon after should pick it up al
It keep it till a reward was offered AZ
IS then return it and demand the rewar
l. it is probable he could not susta
Of his demand at law. He could n
Is claim it for finding and saving t
If parcel, for these things were do
before he knew of the offer-in Il;
i before it was made. He could Il
~ claim it for returning the parcel to t
an bank, for this was only bis legal du
Ut and would not form a considerati
do for a promise to pay S5,OOO. L
~ offer Of II reward would he,- in str
bv law, available only to persons who s.
xt it, and were induced by it to go {
NO and search, upon the risk OF loos1
th. all their labor if they did not find
q parcel.-Nesc York Times.
ok
M THE TILDEN MOVEMENT.
cts I+o1l VOL Tilden ia looming up.