Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-03-21

the result would be the same whether
the plaintiff proved his allegation Of
ownership by one means or the other.
There are circumstances in the case
from which the jury would be author
ized to conclude that the property |
had been abandoned. The defendant
alleges that he and his brother were
the ony ones who had access to the
warehouse in question and there is
testimony tending to show that both
disclaimed any interest in the money
in question. There is other testimony
tending to show that many people
stored furniture and household goods
in the warehouse and that rowing
steamboat hands and fishermen had
access to it. The jury have conclud-
ed that some of these transient peo-
pie left the money there designedly
and having gone away to sea or to
some distant part of this or another
country had found it inconvenient to
return for the money and so had
abandoned it, 1t is possible to aban-
don property anywhere, even in a
warehouse, and it is only when moth
ing else is shown except the place OF
finding that attention must be given
! to the distinction of its being found
upon the ground instead of in some
place of deposit Hence there was
testimony from which the jury might
have concluded that the property
was Abandoned and so to instruct
upon that question was not error.
1t is also urged by the appellant
that the court below erred in over
ruling his motion for nonsuit at the
close of the plaintiffs case on the
ground that the plaintiff had not
proved a cause sufficient to be sub
mitted to the jury. The question is,
then; was there any evidence in the
case which the jury had right to
consider? The defendant contends
that the plaintiff was his employe and
that his taking possession of the
money was in law and effect the de-
fendant's possession. The allegation
of the answer is, in substance, that
the plaintiff was employed by the de-
fendant to remove from the ware
house certain goods, wares and mer-
chandise which the defendant had on
storage there. This was the scope of
the employment of the plaintiff The
handling of the property of other
people not connected with the defen-
dant was not in the line of the plain
tiff's employment and would neither
impose responsibility nor confer
privilege upon the defendant.
The defendant also contends that
the money having been found in the
warehouse of which he was the ten
ant, that fact establishes a qualified
property in the defendant as against
the plaintiff. In support of this con-
tention he cites sundry cases where
customers casually left property in
such places as barber shops, stores
and banks. McAvoy v. Medina II
Allen 54S; State " Mccain, 10 Mo.
249; Loucks v. Gallogly % N Y.
Sup. 1876; Lawrence " State, 1
Humph. 227; Kincaid " Eaton, 9S
Mass. 199 In this class of cases
quasi privity of property arises be-
tween the proprietor and his custom
ers who attend at his place of busi-
ness for the purpose of trade. They
are clearly distinguishable from the
case in hand. There is some testi-
mony in the case tending to show
that both the defendant and his
brother for whom he processes to act
disclaimed any connection with the
money in the first instance. More
over it was private place to which
the defendant alleges only he and his
brother had access. These circum-
stances are sufficient to take the case
to the jury as against the contention
of the defendant that the money hav.
ing been found in his warehouse by
his employe would give the defendant
at least qualified property in, the
money The case is rather like the
case of Hamaker v. Blanchard, 80 Pa,
st. 377 In that case chambermaid
found $50 on the parlor floor of the
hotel in which she was employed, On
reporting it to the landlord he said
perhaps the money belonged to GER
tain guest of the hotel. The maid