Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/227

Medina, n Allen, 548, a customer found a pocket-book which was lying on a table in a barber-shop, and gave it to the barber to advertise for the owner. The owner never appeared, and the barber refused to give it to the finder on his demand. The finder then brought an action against the barber to recover it. The court in its opinion said : ' But this property is not, under the circumstances, to be treated as lost property in that sense in which a finder has a valid claim to hold the same until called for by the true owner. This property was voluntarily placed upon a table in the defendant's shop by a customer of his who accidentally left the same there and has never called for it. The plaintiff also came there as a customer, and first saw the same and took it from the table. The plaintiff did not by this acquire the right to take the property from the shop, but it was rather the duty of the defendant when the fact became known to him to use reasonable care for the safe-keeping of the same until the owner should call for it.' The opinion cites the cases of Bridges v. Hawkesworth, 7

E. L. & Eq. 424, and Lawrence v. State, and referring to the latter, says: 'The court there take a distinction be tween the case of property thus placed by the owner and neglected to be removed, and property lost. It was there held that " to place a pocket-book upon the table and to forget to take it away is not to lose it in the sense in which the authorities referred to speak of lost property." We accept this as the better rule, and especially as one better adapted to secure the rights of the true owner.' In Kincaid v. Eaton, 98 Mass. 139, a pocket-book was found within a banking-house on a desk provided for the use of customers (as in the case under consideration), and it was held that the discovery of the pocket-book, voluntarily placed on the desk in the bank, was not the finding of lost property. In People v. M'Garren, 17 Wend. 460, where a man placed his whip on the counter in a store and went away forgetting to take it, the court held the whip was not lost property, and the taking and concealing of it by the storekeeper was held larceny."