The Worthington advance., 1882-09-28
LOST AND FOUND.
Tho Rights Of the Finder Under the

Law.
Under the head of Lost and Found"
in the advertising columns Of our daily
papers are frequently to be. found no.
tices of articles lost and sometimes q 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 50, even after an honest
and diligent effort. The Detroit News
A singular case Of this kind happened
here lew years ago. A young lawyer
Of this city. after returning from the Cen
tcnial Exposition ut Philadelphia, found
among his papers in his vuljse a United
States government bond for $500 or
81 600. How it got there he 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 uniucEy enough to also
find something else-the owner. But
until they do find the owner they are
the owners Of the thing found This was
decided one hundred and sixty years
ago in this case, which has been followed
ever since.
Ayoung chimney sweep found piece
of jewelry and took it 10 a jeweler to
ascertain lis value. Under the pretense
Of weighing it the jewelcr took out the
stones and offered the. sweep q trifling
sum for it which the latter refused and
insisted on having the jewelry returned
to him. The jewcicr returned the sock
ct without the stones. The sweep ac-
cordinglv brought suit, and the Judge
told the jury that the jeweler was liable
for the value Of the jewels, and unless
ho produced them and showed they
were not Of the finest waterstle 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 q store, or i'll Il private house; the
finder is the owner OF the property until
the owner appears. Sophie Blanchard,
i domestic servant in i hotel ut Lewis
ton, Pa, found three $50 bills in the ho-
tel parlor. Like an honest girl she inl-
mediate'y took them to
the landlord. Upon his sug-
gest'ng that they belonged to a transient
guest Of the house, she savcf them to him
hand to the guest. It was afterwards as
ccrts.ined 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 innkceper was response
bic for the goods of his guests, including
money; that if money was found in Il EO-
tel the law would presume it belonged
to guest; and that US the landlord had
to bear the responsibility he was enti-
tied to keep The money until the owner
should claim it. But the court said there
was no presumption the money belonged
to Il guest, and that Sophia was entitled
to the money. The law ought to treat
all alike, and servants would he encour-
aged to fidelity by protecting them in
equality Of rights with others.
\ somewhat similar case arose in In
diana, and was decided in the same way.
Ellen Quinn, q miss of sixteen. was en-
ployed in paper mill While engaged
in asserting Il bale Of old papers pur-
chased by the proprietor for 1nanuf,c-
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.
Ike set up in defense that as the finder
was in his employ rs 4 rag sorter, what
she found in such employment belonged
to him. But the court said not SO. He
also insisted that us he had bought the
package containing the bills bv weight,
he had bought the bills. But the court
said he did not know thew 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
convcvanccs, and not the proprietors Of
the convcyances. 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
tic floor of a shop or store, the finder
and not the occupant of the building is
entitled to it, because it was probably ac-
cidentally dropped there. But if it is
found on desk or table the o. 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 y thing on desk or
counter and forgetting to take it. away
again is not legally loosing it. Thus a
man while in Boston bank for the pur-
pose Of making a 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
custo Aers:. Not knowing what had be-
come of it he published an advertisement
describing it rs lost anl offering large
reward for its return. It was found on
the desk by i boy, who returned it to
the owner and claimed the reward,
which tho owner refused TO pay. The
court decided that us tho booklet book
had !'ccn Voluntarily placed on the
desk it was not lost, hut had been left
Ill the custody Of the bank, and the boy
was therefore not entitled to the re.
"AlN. ~, WllClC IL CttcLOititF i'll u DlFDcT
shop found a pockct-book containing
money on a table Ill the shop, the
court held that the barber and not the
customer was entitled TO it.
"A very close case WAS tried in In.
diasa q few years ago. Mr.. Dur!cc
bought 4 secondhand safe of old-G,sh-
ioned make. He offered to sell it for
$40 to a blacksmith, who refused to buy
it. lie then lett 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 roll of bills amount
iHg to $l65. Mr.. Durfee learned of the
hnd, and acting under the advice of a
lawyer demanded 4 return of the safe
and its conteuts. The blacksmith
promptly gave up the old safe but kent
the money, and the court said he had =
right to. So Mr.. Durfcc lost both lis
suit and the money.
If the article found has the owners
name cn it, Or if there arc amy other cir
cumstances showing to whom it belongs,
the finder is guilty OF stealing if Ec tlke
it up with the intention of keeping it,
But if his intention ut first was to return
the article to the owner, but hc after
wards makes up his mind so keep it, he
is not legally Il thief in most parts of the
f.cuntry, whatever he may be morally.