The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1879-12-06

In missouri the law is that it is the
duty of the finder of an article of value
to make in good faith reasonable exer-
tons to discover the owner. If he neg
lects so to do and appropriates the arfi-
Gle to his own use or benefit, the law
regards him as guilty of larceny. The
legal relations Of the finder to the things
found are many and various, and cor
rect knowledge of them is often impor-
tant. In recent case the Supreme
Court of Indiana has rendered an inter-
esting decision upon this subject. A
young girl who was working in paper
mill near Delphi found two $50 bills
among some old rags in the mill. In
order to learn whether they were genu-
inc she showed them to her employers,
who retained them, claiming that by the
purchase of the rags and the envelope
in which they were found they had ac-
quired property in the bills. The true
owner was never discovered. The Court
decided that the money belonged to the
girl, and pronounced the general prin-
pie, that the finder of lost property has
title to it superior to that of any other
person except the loser or real owner.
and that the place of finding makes no
difference in this rule.
The earliest leading case of this ma
ture was in England, where chimney
sweeper's boy, having found Jewel
and left it with goldsmith to ascertain
Its value, was held entitled to recover it.
A few years ago in Rhode Island a man
who had purchased an old safe left it
with a blacksmith to sell, with the priv
ilege of using it until sold. The black
smith found $165 in the lining. It was
never known who had been the owner
of the money. The owner of the safe
claimed that the money should be his
by virtue of prior possession. The
Court held that he had never had pos
session Of the money except unwittingly
by possessing the safe which contained
it, and that his purchase was of the
safe, not of the safe and its contents.
The blacksmith kept the money. A
man picked up parcel of bank-notes
in barber-shop. He gave them to the
barber to keep for the owner II he could
be found. The latter was not found.
and the Court decided that the notes.
before they were picked up, never were
in the barber's custody nor within the
protection of his house, and that he was
not entitled to them.
In a Pennsylvania case it was adj
Judged that a conductor who had found
money that had been lost in q railroad
ear was entitled to it against the rail-
road company. If person intention
lily places a thing in certain place
md then forgets it, and it is discovered
md taken possession of by another, it
would not be lost in contemplation of
aw, and therefore there could be no
egal finding of it by stranger, and
MS appropriation OF it would be a fell
my. The old civil law was that he who
rad found a thing that was lost was
obliged to preserve it in order to restore
t to its owner, and whenever he did re-
tore it he could not detain any part of |
nor demand any thing for having |
ound it. The same principle is recog.
lized to-day. 1t has been repeatedly |
Iecided in England that the finder Of |
ost property has no lien for expenses |
incurred in taking care of |
{. But the offer of a reward is equiya-
emit to q contract, and will confer upon !
he finder q lien on the article to the ex-
emit of the reward. With this excep-
ion, in the United States the general
is that, since a lien for the
ervice of finding may be made means |
oppression and exaction, thel aw win
ever infer its existence, in furtherance T
public convenience or policy.-SE. I
x,zses f1Z,be- Lena0crGf