The Northern Pacific farmer., 1882-09-28
LOST AND FOUND.
The Rights of the Finder Under the
Law.

IN the advertising columns OF our daily
papers are frequently to he found no.
tees of articles lost and sometimes no.
tice Of an article found. Most of the
things that are lost are found by some
one. Sometimes they are restored to
the owner; perhaps quite as frequently
not. Often the finder makes no effort
to find the owner, and sometimes he is
unable to do SO, even after an honest
and diligent effort. The Detroit News
says:
A singular case of this kind happened
here few years ago. A young llwyer
of this city, after returning from the Gen.
tenial Exposition at Philadelphia, found
among his papers in his val;se United
States government bond for $500 or
81 900. How it got there ne did not
know. He advertised it, but no owner
appeared to claim it. Most persons are
not so fortunate. If they are lucky
enough to find anything valuable they
are generally unfucky enough to also
find something clse-the owner. But
until they do find the owner they arc
the owners of the thing found. This was
decided ono hundred and sixty years
ago in this case, which has been followed
ever since.
Ayoung chimney sweep found a piece
Of jewelry and took it to Il jeweler to
ascertain its value. Under the pretense
of weighing it the iewcler took out the
stones and offered the sweep trit1ing
sum for it which the latter refused and
insisted on having the jewelry returned
to him. The jewcler returned the sock
ct without the stones. Che sweep ac-
cordingly brought suit, and the Judge
|. told the jury that the jeweler was liable
for the value Of the jewels, and unless
he produced them and showed they
were not of the finest water the jury
should give damages against them for
the value Of the best jewels, which they
accordingly did.
Nor does it make any difference where
the article is lost-whether in the street,
in a store, or in a private house; the
finder is the owner of the property until
the owner appears. Sophie Blanchard,
domestic servant in hotel at Lewis
ton, Pa, found three $40 bills in the ho-
tel parlor. Like an honest girl she i'm
the landlord Upon his sug-
gesting that they belonged to transient
guest Of the house, she gavelt to him
hand to the guest. Itwas afterwards as
certained that the guest did not lose the
money, and Sophia demanded it from
the landlord, who refused to deliver it.
In the suit which she brought to recover
the money the landlords lawyers argued
that to allow servants to retain money
found by them in their employers
house would encourage them to be dis
honest; that an innkecper was RESPONSE
Die for the goods Of his guests, including
money; that if money was found in a ho-
tel the law would presume it belonged
to q: guest; and that as the landlord had
to bear tho responsibility he was enti-
tied to keep the money until the owner
should claim it. But the court said there
to a guest, and that Sophia was entitled
to the money. The law ought to treat
all alike, and servants would be cncour-
aged to fidelity by protecting them in
equality of rights with others.
A somewhat similar case arose in In
diana, and was decided in the same way.
Ellen Quinn, miss Of sixteen, was en-
ployed in paper mill. While engaged
in asserting a bale of old papers pur-
chased by the proprietor for manUfac-
ture, she found two $50 bills in an envel-
op. There was no mark to show to
whom they belonged. She handed them
to her employer to see if they were gen
uine, upon his promise to return them.
He kept the money and she sued him.
He set up in defense that as the finder
was in his employ as a rag sorter, what
she found in such employment belonged
to him.. But the court said not SO; He
also insisted that as he had bought the
package containing the bills by weight,
he had bought the bills. But the court
said he did not know they were in the
package, and that their weight was so
small compared with their value they
would not consider it, Lex de minimis
non curat-the law takes no account of
little things.
And the courts have decided that rail-
road conductors and omnibus drivers are
entitled to the articles they find in their
convcyances, and not the proprietors of
the COnyeyances. The law, however,
makes some very fine distinctions be-
tween when an article is lost and when
it is not. If an article is found lying on
the floor of shop or store, the finder
and not the occupant of the building is
entitled to it, because it was probably ac-
found on desk or table the OF cupant Of
the building and not the finder is en-
Titled to it, because, says the law, it was
voluntarily left there by the owner in
the custody of the occupant. In other
words, placing thing on a desk or
counter and forgetting to take it away
again is not legally loosing it. Thus
man while in a Boston bank for the pur-
pose of making deposit laid his pocket
book, containing valuable papers,
on one of the desks outside of the
bank counters that banks are
accustomed to provide for the use of
colsto rers: Not knowing what had be-
come of it he published an advertisement
describing it as lost and offering large
reward for its return. 1t was found on
the desk by boy, who returned it to
the owner and claimed the reward,
court decided that as the booklet book
had been voluntarily placed on the
desk it was not lost, but had been left
in the custody Of the bank, and the boy
was therefore not entitled to the re-
ward. So, where a customer in a barber
shop found a pocket-book containing
money on 4 table IN the shop, the
court held that the barber and not the
customer was entitled to it.
A very close case was tried in In
diana few years ago. Mr.. Dur.ee
bouglit a secondhand safe of o!d-fas}i-
ioned make. He offered to sell it for
$40 to blacksmith, who refused to buy
it. He then left it with the blacksmith
for sale, giving him permission to use it,
One day when the blacksmith was exam
ing it, he found between the outer cas-
ing and the lining a roll of bills amount
lug to $l65. Mr.. Durfee learned of the
tnd, and acting under the advice ofa
lawyer demanded return of the safe
and its conteuts. The blacksmith
promptly gave up the old safe but kept
the money, and the court said he had Ia
right to: So Mr.. Durfce lost both his
suit and the money.
If the article found has the owners
name Gil it, or if there are any other cir
! cumstances showing to whom it belongs,
the finder is guilty Of stealing if lie t,ke
it up with the intention of keeping it..
But if his intention at first was to return
the article to the owner, but hc alter-s
wards makes up his mind so keep it, he
is not legally thief in most parts of the /
country, whatever he may be morally. /