Finders

Laws on Property

By: Aplasca, Baluca, Carreon, Gregorio, Mallari, Pastrana, Punsalan, and

Tensuan
Joseph Baker v.
State of Ohio
29 Ohio St. 184
Supreme Court of Ohio.
December, 1876
 Facts
Joseph Baker found a containing a at a point in the road
near where he worked. It had recently been lost by his neighbor, Hinton
Alden, who was temporarily detained within Baker’s sight when he
lost the . Alden informed Baker of his loss.
 Facts

A few days after, Baker admitted to a witness in the case that he had
found the pocket-book and that he knew its rightful owner. He also
admitted that the pocket-book had only very recently been lost at the time
he found it. When asked why he had not returned it to Alden, he replied,
‘Finders are keepers.’
Baker was convicted of petit larceny in the Probate Court of Van Wert
county. He now hopes to reverse the judgment on appeal.
 Issues
The law of this case:
“When one finds goods that have been lost and appropriates them with the
intent to own them, he may only be convicted of larceny if he reasonably
believes that the owner can be found. Otherwise, he cannot be found guilty of
the same.”
1. When Baker found the pocket-book and the money within it, did he intend to
appropriate them to his own use?

2. Did Baker have reasonable grounds to believe, at the time he found the
pocket-book, that its owner could be found?
 Court’s Ruling
1. Baker intended to appropriate the pocket-book and the money within it to his own
use when he found them
- This may be inferred from (1) how he concealed the fact that he had found the pocket book from Alden
when the latter informed him of his loss, and (2) his subsequent declaration that ‘Finders are keepers.’

2. Baker had reasonable grounds to believe that the pocket book’s owner could be
found at the time he found it
- Baker knew that the goods had been very recently lost before the finding, and that Alden had recently
been at the point where he found them. These facts constitute reasonable grounds to believe that
Alden was the owner.

Judgment affirmed.
State v. Stevens
2 Penne. 486
Court of General Sessions of Delaware, Kent County.
April 26, 1900
 Facts

John W. Ennis, while in a store in Clayton, laid upon a safe $17

but forgot to pick it up. The next day, he figured he was not able to put it in
his pocketbook where he had been keeping his money .
 Facts
When he was in the store, there were around 10-12 men

with him. Stevens, being one of them. Upon learning that defendant might
have the money, he asked Stevens about it, but was told that it was not with
him.
 Facts

A clerk in the store testified that he saw Stevens pick

up something near the safe but Stevens denied finding any money.
Issue

Is Stevens guilty of larceny?

 Points of Contention

Stevens: The simple act of finding and taking into one’s

possession a thing, without knowing who the owner was
at the time of the innocent taking, should not constitute
larceny.
 Court’s Ruling

If the finder knows who the owner of the lost chattel is from any
marks upon it, or if, from the circumstances under which it was
found, the owner could have reasonably been ascertained, then
the fraudulent conversion to the finder's use is sufficient evidence
to justify the jury in finding a felonious intent.

STEVENS NOT GUILTY.

John Lawrence v.
The State
20 Tenn. 228
Supreme Court of Tennessee
December, 1839
 Facts
Complainant John Muirhead, a prosecutor, went to the barber shop
of the plaintiff John Lawrence, to get a haircut.

After having his hair trimmed, he took out his pocket book
(purse), and, handed a bank bill to the barber, out of which he took his
compensation, and he placed it on the .
 Facts

A fight occurred in the streets,

so Muirhead went out and left the pocket book and left it
on the table .
 Facts
Muirhead only remembered that he left his pocket book when he was undressing
for bed.

He went back to the shop, only to find out that it was already missing.
Apparently, Lawrence used the money to buy confections in
Nashville.
 Facts

The circuit court of Wilson county indicted Lawrence of for stealing the
property of Muirhead. He pleaded not guilty, but was still convicted
for grand larceny.
 Points of Contention
Plaintiff Lawrence’s Counsel:
◉ To constitute a larceny there must have been committed a trespass
by the defendant in the taking and carrying away the property of the
prosecutor
◉ But in this case, there was no severance of the pocketbook from the
possession of the prosecutor.
◉ It was not in his personal possession, nor in his custody or control,
and the testimony proves that he did not know where it was.
◉ This was a case of actual loss.
 Points of Contention

Complainant Muirhead’s Counsel:

◉ The pocket-book and money therein contained were within the
control of the prosecutor at any moment when his mind should recur
to them.
◉ If they had been left where he intentionally placed them, and that they
were, consequently at the time of the seizure of them, within the
constructive possession of the prosecutor, and the subject of larceny.
 Issue

1. Whether or not the prosecutor had constructive

possession of his pocketbook as required in the
crime of larceny
 Court’s Ruling

◉ The Court ruled in the affirmative

◉ For there to be larceny there must be:
○ Constructive possession in the owner of the goods
○ Trespass in the taking
◉ There was constructive possession in the prosecutor because the
pocket-book was not lost
◉ The loss of goods depends upon something more than the knowledge
or ignorance, the memory or want of memory of the owner
◉ To lose is NOT to place or put anything carefully and voluntarily in the
place you intend, and then forget it
 Court’s Ruling
◉ It is casually and involuntarily parting from the possession; and is usually
found in a place or under circumstances to prove to the finder that the
owner's will was not employed in placing it there

◉ The prosecutor having left his pocket-book on a table and forgetting to take it,
cannot be interpreted as having lost his property

◉ Thus defendant could not be called a finder and cannot set up the defense
that there since the pocket-book was lost, he cannot be charged with larceny
The defendant is guilty of larceny.