The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1908-06-18
Famous Case of Treasure-trove.


| The law court has handed down
decision in the famous "treasure-
trove" case from Franklin county,
declaring that the owner of the land
did not have an interest in the hidden
gold that was found and deciding that
three men who were present at the
time of the finding Of the treasure
were equal owners and that the man
who discovered it was not entitled to
the whole of it. The case came to
the law court on an appeal BY the
defendant, Fessenden f. Hackett,
from the verdict for the plaintiffs.
Orlando Weeks and Edwin +. Morton.
Hackett was the man who first dis
covered the treasure, while the two
plaintiffs were at work with him at
the time. The owner of the land was
Leonard j. Hackett and the decision
of the court rules that the coins thus
discovered deposited in the soil
became what is known in law as
treasure-trove, the title to which
does not pass with the soil and that
the owner of the premises where the
coin was found acquired no title TO 1t
by virtue of his ownership of the land.
The plaintiffs and defendant were
employed by the owner of mill site
at New Vineyard, in Franklin county,
to make an excavation about eight
feet vide for half way preparatory
to the erection of new mill There
had been some joking between these
workmen and Mr.. SWEET, neighbor,
who happened to be present, with
reference to tradition that one
Porter, former owner, had buried
some money on the premises.
The plaintiffs and defendants were
working In aditch about four or five
feet from each other when the de-
PENDANT discovered the top of an old
can and asked SWEET, who walking
away, to come back, saving. 81 have
found ii. | guess it is filled with
sand.n
After further digging the plaintiff
Morton took up the can when the
bottom dropped out and the silver
coins were seen falling from the can
among the stones. The defendant
! exclaimed, sit is money. ! wish |
hadn't said anything" While dig
ging out more stones for the purpose
OF picking up the coins that had
fallen, the plaintiff Morton, discov-
cred second can which was taken
out by the defendant and Mr.. SWEET.
Morton continued to dig out the
stones and gravel and soon uncov-
cred a third can, the top of which,
however, appears to have first been
seen by the plaintiff Weeks This
can was removed by the defendant
and the plaintiff, Morton. The three
cans were set in triangular position
about a foot equl distant from each
other, the space between them being
filled with stones and gravel. The
COINS were of the aggregate par value
of S1,284.67.
The reseript, drawn by Associate
Justice William Penn Whitehouse of
Augusta holds IS follows:
First-That the evidence warranted
the jury i'll reaching a conclusion that
neither the plaintiff nor the defend
ants had any knowledge or belief
that the silver coins had been dis
covered until they were seen to fall
through the bottom of the first can
after it was taken out by the plain
tiff Morton, and that the participa-
ton of the plaintiffs in the discovery
of the coins was sufficient to consti-
tute them joint finders with the
defendant.
Second-That the coins thus dis
covered deposited in the soil became
what Is known in law as treasure
trove, the title to which does not pass
with the soil and that the owner OF
the premises where the coin was
found acquire no title to it by virtue
of his ownership of the land.
Third That in the absence of legis-
lation upon the subject, the title to
such property belongs to the finder
as against all the world except the
true owner and that ordinarily, the
place where it is found is immaterial
Fourth-That while it is a we'll es
tablished rule that one tenant in COM
mon cannot maintain troYer against
his cotenant for the reason that the
two are equally entitled to posses
sion, this rule can have no reasonable
application to such commodities that
are readily divisible by count or
measure into portions absolutely
alike in quality, such as grain or
money.
Fifth-that absolute and unquali-
fed ownership of chattel is not
essential to enable men to maintain
trover for its conversion and that
each of the Joint finders in the case
at bar was entitled to possession of
one third of the coin contained in
the cans found, charged with the duty
of holding it for the true owner if
be could be ascertained and was
therefore authorized to maintain
trover against his co-tenant for the
conversion of his share.
The verdicts in favor of the plain
tiffs were warranted by the evidence
and the entry must be:
Exceptions and motion overruled.
The Best PiIlsEver Sold.