River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1885-07-30

abashed before a record that, covering
a period of four years, is one of UNI
varying success.
The Practice of Appropriating Lost Prop
erty.
There are few little moral con
undrums, says The London Globe,
which from time immemorial have
cropped up for a solution from which
they are still rs far off as ever The
last puzzle of the kind is one, however,
which might be supposed long ago
settled A cabman drove fare a short
distance. and was paid what he and
his passenger both took to be a shilling.
but which aftcrward turned out to be
a sovereign. Query: What ought the
cabman to have done on finding that a
mistake had been made? Whatever
morality might have to say about it,
the law, at MI events, might be
expected TO pronounce upon the point
without hesitation. Such mistakes
between cabmen and their fares and
tradesmen and their customers must
have often occurred before. Neverthe-
less within the past week or two five of
our great legal luminaries have been
shedding their united light upon the
question, but have been quite unable to
agree. The cabman was charged with
theft and was convicted. The lord
chief Justice is satisfied that he was
rightly convicted SirJames Stephens
Is equally satisfied that his conviction
was wrong, because when the man
took the sovereign he had no felonious
intent Another of the judges thought
it might amount larceny by a bailee.
When such doctors disagree, there are
few who could undertake to decide
without presumption, and we must leave
the matter SO far as its legal aspects
are concerned.
But there is moral point of view
from which the unprofessional mind
may. with more propriety, regard the
subject Morally, the duty of the
cabman seems, at first sight at any rate,
to be perfectly plain. He had received
10 shillin@s more than was due to him,
and, of course. he ought to have taken
such means as were open to him to
refund it. This seems quite clear.
And vet, if we slightly alter the terms
of this conundrum, how many good
people are there holding themselves
to be upright and honorable-who
would not give themselves the benefit
of very different solution? For
instance. there is the familiar ease of
man who gives 70 for an old piece of
furniture. and when he has got it home
discovers a secret drawer in which there
is roll of bank notes. How many
strictly honorable persons are there in
every hundred who would deem it their
duty. without hesitation or debate, to
take back that roll of bank notes to the
vendor OF the furniture? Perhaps the
majority of even nOminally conscien-
tious people would argue that they
made their purchase in good faith, and
without any knowledge Of this secreted
treasure They bought the article of
furniture lust as it stood and for what
if was worth. and if ii turned out to be
more valuable than they had supposed.
they were entitled to the benefit, just
as man would be entitled to the full
benefit OF the purchase of an estate
upon which a valuable seam of coal
should be discovered shortly after the
completion of the bargain. People of
+ average honesty are every day buying
things which turn out to be more
valuable than either vender or buyer
was aware of ut the time of the trans
action. A man who buys a parcel of
h.,i--y ..t sstl,a
to be their fair market value. and after
ward discovers among them some old
volume worth a huniered-fold the sum
he paid for the whole parcel. would be
deemed rather a simpleton if he should
run back to the bookseller and insist
on paving the fairyalue of his purchase.
But. in point of strict principle,
where is the difference between keeping
a book for which no fair equivalent
has been given. and which, when
bought and sold. was supposed to be
of only hundredth part of its
real value and keeping a sovereign
of which no real equivalent
service has been rendered. and which
at the moment of payment was sup
posed by both parties to be Il shilling?
In strict principle. there is no difference
at ALL There i difference. no doubt;
but it is a difference not of principle,
but merely of eXpendiency and ofprac-
ticabilitv. 1t would hardly be prac-
ticable 10 act habitually on a sense OF
honor which reuired a purchaser
always to pay up what he discovered
to be the actual value of what he had
bought. 1t is. however quite prac-
ticablc habitually to return a coin
which has been given III mistake. II
is no doubt a more or less clear pre-
ception of this that has secured general
acceptance for the old maxim, ''caveat
emptor. which seems to justify a man
sticking to a good bargain. though il
; the Judgment of a lord chief justice
he would he rightly convicted as i
, thief if he held on to a sovereign which
, he had bought with his labor in the
belief that it was a shilling.
? Whatever doubts there NAV be as t
? the propriety of adiudging man to b,
a thief for retaining a sovereign which
= bona itde he had taken for a shilling
: few would for a moment hesitate t.
| denounce him for dishonesty, if he hat
/ taken for shilling what he knew t,
, be a sovereign rendered in mistake
Yet. in another form. this. too. is don,
every day. and nobody calls it theft o.
regards it as any indication of wan
Of principle. A man sees an old
I Notwithstanding picture hanging NJ
, at the door of a secondhand shop ant
: bays it for half crown. The shop
! keeper has not the faintest idea tina