Year: 1878

SALVAGE VERSUS PRoPERTY.-One of the effects of
the late great storm, as reasonable to suppose,
to bring the question of the title to property
before the courts for adjudication. A case of this
kind brought before the court at New Castle last
week and we thus bring it before readers because
of the general interest in the question of salvage and
property affected by storms &C.


Edward Wilson, of Brandywine Hundred, had Is
head of cattle in the marshes the morning of the
Storm ten of which were rescued by boats two were
drowned and one, on the following afternoon,
found in Joseph GOulds slaughter house having been
sold to him for SIC by Joseph Shane Shane repre-
ssned to him that it belonged to his daughter None
of the cattle recovered were found on Mr.. Wilson's
property.


On the part of the defense Mr. S. c. Reevg testified
that he Shane fasten rope arouud the heifer's
horns. she struggling in the waters and with
the assistance of two colored men, pull her out In
the opinion of the witness it would have been i'm
possible Orthe heer have escaped drowning had it
been suffered to remain in the water much longer.
Property of all kinds cattle pigs cornfodder, lumber
railroad ties and lots of other things floating around
promiscuOusly and the railroad was lined with men
who were exerting themselves to save whatever they
could fromthe flood. The place where Shane rescued
this heifer was about a mile and a half from Mr..
Wilson's house.


Counsel for the defence claimed that Shane had
found the property abandoned and in eminent dan
ger of being drowned and, in saving it, the
ship vested in himself The plaintiff counsel argued
that the evidence showed that the prisoner had gone
out with deliberate intent of getting possession Of
whatever of value he could find afoat and that he
converted the property to his own at once without
making the least effort to find out who the owner
thereof


The Chief Justice not being present during thC
afternoon Judge Houston delivered the charge of the
Court, saying:


We have doubts to whether this particular
case constitutes the crime of larceny from the fact
proven 1t is stronger than any of the that hav
been cited on either side This referred to case
quoted by counsel in argument.l 1t is not case o
merely hndlng goods ana converting them to the us
heifer almost in the act of drowning, and. whateve
may have been the motive that actuated this man ol
such occasion as that to this heifer it is no
necessary that we should stop to inquire The act il
itself was commendable one. He not only took thi
property lawfully, but he actually saved 1t, we ma
conclude from the evidence, from destruction. Now
whatever wrongful act he may have committed itw
not in doing this: prepared to go so far
10 say it was his duty to have gone off and hunted
the owner; and if he afterwards disposed of tn
heifer his property with a wrongful intent. ths
would not have divested the owner of his proprietor
ship therein: and he could have replevined and rC
been responsible III suit for damages at the hands


Judge Houston then referred to similar case whic
happened many years ago at an nundation on Mi
plliOn creek. Kent county. \ man named Malone
took up some valuable LOGS which he found aloat an
noored them on shore supposing he had made theI
secure but they afterwards driited from their moo
ings and went further up the creek where they weT
caught by a named Clark. Maloney tndin
them after Clark had taken them, seized tn
logs on his claim of prior possession Clark brougf
suit against Maloney. and the Court held that Clarl
having gained special title in the goods the Law
ful poSsesSOr as against MalOney


in the case now under consideration" continue
Judge Houston. there was labor performed and thel
the saving of this property from destruction. an
we are not prepared to say that this case Of la
ceny, and, entertaining this view, we are obliged
say u the jury that we do not think it would be wa
ranted in finding the prisoner guilty of larcen
This however, is for the jury to determine they al
the judges of the law as well as of the facts in Il
case"


After brief consultation the jury returned
verdict of mot guilty.