664

HILARY TERM, 8 GEO.

1 STRANGE, 506.

to the servant was sufficient to maintain the action against the master, on proving a subsequent demand and refusal; so the plaintiff had a verdict (1). (1) Cary v. Webster, ante, 480. See the next case.

ARMORY

vers. DELAMIRIE.

In Middlesex coram Pratt C.J. [S. C. 1 Sm. L. C. (1903 ed.) 356. Observed upon, White v. Mullett, 1851, 6 Ex. 714; Bridges v. Hawhesworth, 1851, 21 L. J. Q. B. 77. Inapplicable, Wentworth v. Lloyd, 1864, 10 H. L. C. 589. See Hammersmith Railway Company v. Brand, 1869, L. R 4 H. L. 224; Taunton Election Petition, 1869, 21 L. T. 173; Mussammat Sundar v. Mussammat Parbati, 1889, L. R. 16 Ind. App. 193; Keighley, Maxsted & Company v. Durant [1901], A. C. 255; The Winkfield [1902], P. 55]. Finder of a jewel may maintain trover. The plaintiff being a chimney sweeper's boy found a jewel and carried it to the defendant's shop (who was a goldsmith) to know what it was, and delivered it into the hands of the apprentice, who under pretence of weighing it, took out the stones, and calling to the master to let him know it came to three halfpence, the master offered the boy the money, who refused to take it, and insisted to have the thing again; whereupon the apprentice delivered him back the socket without the stones. And now in trover against the master these points were ruled : 1. That the finder of a jewel, though he does not by such finding acquire an , absolute property or ownership, yet he has such a property as will enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner, and consequently may maintain trover. 2. That the action well lay against the master, who gives a credit to his apprentice, and is answerable for his neglect (1). 3. As to the value of the jewel several of the trade were examined to prove what a jewel of the finest water that would fit the socket would be worth; and the Chief Justice directed the jury, that unless the defendant did produce the jewel, and shew it not to be of the finest water, they should presume the strongest against him, and make the value of the best jewels the measure of their damages; which they accordingly did. (1) Jones v. Hart, Salk. 441. Cor. Holt C.J. Mead v. Hamond, supra. Grammer v. Nixon, post, 653. [506]
TOWERS

vers. SIR

JOHN OSBORNE.

At Guildhall coram Pratt C.J. [Discussed, Cooper v. Elston, 1796, 7 T. E. 17.] Executory contracts for goods, not within the Statute of Frauds. The defendant bespoke a chariot, and when it was made refused to take it; and in an action for the value, it was objected, that they should prove something given in earnest, or a note in writing, since there was no delivery of any part of the goods. But the Chief Justice ruled this not to be a case within the Statute of Frauds, which relates only to contracts for the actual sale of goods, where the buyer is immediately answerable, without time given him by special agreement, and the seller is to deliver the goods immediately (1). (1) Simon v. Metwier, 1 Black. 599. 3 Burr. 1921. Bull. L. N. P. 280, S. C. Clayton v. Andrews, 1 Burr. 2101. Alexander v. Comber, 1 H. Black. 20.