Case File
Finders keepers?
The law about who owns things that have been ‘found’ has been developed by judges over many years. This area of judge-made law is known as ‘possession’. Who has lawful ‘possession’ of items that are ‘found’? If you find a gold ring in the park can you claim that you own it? Consider the following cases, then answer the questions that follow.
Case A (Armory v. Delamirie, (1722) 1 Strange 505)
A was a young boy who worked for a chimney sweep. He found a piece of jewellery and took it to a goldsmith’s shop to find out what sort of stone was set in the piece and how much it was worth. At the shop he handed the jewellery to an apprentice. The apprentice pretended to weigh it. Instead of weighing the jewellery the apprentice removed the stone from the setting. The apprentice told the goldsmith that the jewellery was worth one-and-a-half pence. The goldsmith offered to buy the jewellery from A. A refused to sell it. When the apprentice returned the jewellery to A, A noticed that the stone was missing. A sued for the return of the stone.
The judge made the following decision:
Case B (Bridges v. Hawkesworth, (1851) 21 LJQB 75)
H found a parcel of banknotes under the floor of a shop. The area of the shop in which the notes were found was a public area. The shopkeeper did not know that the banknotes were under the floor. H claimed ownership of the banknotes. The shopkeeper contested the claim, stating that as the owner of the shop he owned the banknotes.
In this case the judge made the following decision:
S was employed by a water company to clean out a pool of water. The pool of water was on land privately owned by the water company and not open to the public. When digging in the mud at the bottom of the pool, S found two rings. S claimed that he had a right to keep the rings. The company disagreed. The company argued that possession of land carries with it, in general, possession of everything attached to it or under the land. The water company claimed that they did not need to know that the rings were there. The judge agreed—stating that the company had de facto possession because they had the power to exclude others from the area and had shown an intention to do that.
Case D (Hannah v. Peel, [1945] 1 KB 509)
P was the freehold owner of a house. He didn’t live in the house. During World War II, it was requisitioned on two occasions by the army. H was a soldier who was billeted in the house during one of the times it was taken over by the army. While staying in the house, H found a brooch and handed it to the police as lost property. The owner of the brooch was never found. Two years later the police returned the brooch to P. P sold the brooch. Before the police returned the brooch to P, he had no knowledge that the brooch existed. He did not know that H had found the brooch and he did not know that it had been handed to the police. Some time later the soldier (H) contacted the police to find out whether anyone had claimed the brooch. H claimed that since he was the one who had found the brooch, he had the right to claim ownership.
Case E (Byrne v. Hoare, [1965] Qld R 135)
(This is an Australian case.) A police officer was assigned to special duty on privately owned land. The land was the exit from a drive-in theatre. The police officer found a gold ingot on the land and handed it in. The owner of the ingot was not found. Three parties claimed that they were owners of the ingot. The owner of the land claimed that he owned the ingot because the land belonged to him. The police officer claimed to be the owner because he found the ingot. The state claimed possession of the ingot because the police officer worked for the state.
The court decided that because the police officer was on ‘special’ duties he was not employed doing ‘normal activities’. He was therefore the same as any other member of the public who finds goods on land to which the public has regular access. The police officer kept the gold ingot.
Case F
Two friends fossicking together stumbled on more than $200 000 in buried cash. The men found the cash as they rummaged through rubbish near the Balaclava railway station. The area near the station where the money was found had been used for storing disused railway goods. People had also been dumping rubbish in the area. Both men took their find to the local police station. Under the law, if goods or cash handed in have not been claimed after three months or are not linked to a specific crime, it’s ‘finders keepers’.
Case G
A bricklayer working on renovations found $5645 in a vacuum flask buried in the garden of a Fairfield house. The money had been buried more than 30 years earlier by the then property owner, Harry Nugent, who could not be bothered putting his winnings from greyhound races into the bank. Subsequently, Mr Nugent had a car accident, lost his memory and forgot about the money. Mr Nugent, bricklayer Nigel Gregory and the owner of the property appeared in Preston Magistrates’ Court to try to determine the ownership of the money. Magistrate John Doherty urged the claimants to settle. They did, with Mr Nugent and the property owner each taking $2000 and Mr Gregory $1645.
Case studies Finders keepers? Complete the following tasks related to the preceding case file.
The law about who owns things that have been ‘found’ has been developed by judges over many years. This area of judge-made law is known as ‘possession’. Who has lawful ‘possession’ of items that are ‘found’? If you find a gold ring in the park can you claim that you own it? Consider the following cases, then answer the questions that follow.
Case A (Armory v. Delamirie, (1722) 1 Strange 505)
A was a young boy who worked for a chimney sweep. He found a piece of jewellery and took it to a goldsmith’s shop to find out what sort of stone was set in the piece and how much it was worth. At the shop he handed the jewellery to an apprentice. The apprentice pretended to weigh it. Instead of weighing the jewellery the apprentice removed the stone from the setting. The apprentice told the goldsmith that the jewellery was worth one-and-a-half pence. The goldsmith offered to buy the jewellery from A. A refused to sell it. When the apprentice returned the jewellery to A, A noticed that the stone was missing. A sued for the return of the stone.
The judge made the following decision:
- the finder can keep what he finds unless it is claimed by the rightful owner
- the goldsmith is responsible for the actions of the apprentice
- compensation should be decided on the presumption that the jewellery was of the best quality.
Case B (Bridges v. Hawkesworth, (1851) 21 LJQB 75)
H found a parcel of banknotes under the floor of a shop. The area of the shop in which the notes were found was a public area. The shopkeeper did not know that the banknotes were under the floor. H claimed ownership of the banknotes. The shopkeeper contested the claim, stating that as the owner of the shop he owned the banknotes.
In this case the judge made the following decision:
- to have ownership of ‘found’ goods you must know that the goods exist, and you must have an intention of keeping them or of excluding others from them
- the goods were found in a public area of the shop and therefore the shopkeeper did not have control over them
- the shopkeeper had not shown any intention of possessing the goods—they were just lying under the floor.
S was employed by a water company to clean out a pool of water. The pool of water was on land privately owned by the water company and not open to the public. When digging in the mud at the bottom of the pool, S found two rings. S claimed that he had a right to keep the rings. The company disagreed. The company argued that possession of land carries with it, in general, possession of everything attached to it or under the land. The water company claimed that they did not need to know that the rings were there. The judge agreed—stating that the company had de facto possession because they had the power to exclude others from the area and had shown an intention to do that.
Case D (Hannah v. Peel, [1945] 1 KB 509)
P was the freehold owner of a house. He didn’t live in the house. During World War II, it was requisitioned on two occasions by the army. H was a soldier who was billeted in the house during one of the times it was taken over by the army. While staying in the house, H found a brooch and handed it to the police as lost property. The owner of the brooch was never found. Two years later the police returned the brooch to P. P sold the brooch. Before the police returned the brooch to P, he had no knowledge that the brooch existed. He did not know that H had found the brooch and he did not know that it had been handed to the police. Some time later the soldier (H) contacted the police to find out whether anyone had claimed the brooch. H claimed that since he was the one who had found the brooch, he had the right to claim ownership.
Case E (Byrne v. Hoare, [1965] Qld R 135)
(This is an Australian case.) A police officer was assigned to special duty on privately owned land. The land was the exit from a drive-in theatre. The police officer found a gold ingot on the land and handed it in. The owner of the ingot was not found. Three parties claimed that they were owners of the ingot. The owner of the land claimed that he owned the ingot because the land belonged to him. The police officer claimed to be the owner because he found the ingot. The state claimed possession of the ingot because the police officer worked for the state.
The court decided that because the police officer was on ‘special’ duties he was not employed doing ‘normal activities’. He was therefore the same as any other member of the public who finds goods on land to which the public has regular access. The police officer kept the gold ingot.
Case F
Two friends fossicking together stumbled on more than $200 000 in buried cash. The men found the cash as they rummaged through rubbish near the Balaclava railway station. The area near the station where the money was found had been used for storing disused railway goods. People had also been dumping rubbish in the area. Both men took their find to the local police station. Under the law, if goods or cash handed in have not been claimed after three months or are not linked to a specific crime, it’s ‘finders keepers’.
Case G
A bricklayer working on renovations found $5645 in a vacuum flask buried in the garden of a Fairfield house. The money had been buried more than 30 years earlier by the then property owner, Harry Nugent, who could not be bothered putting his winnings from greyhound races into the bank. Subsequently, Mr Nugent had a car accident, lost his memory and forgot about the money. Mr Nugent, bricklayer Nigel Gregory and the owner of the property appeared in Preston Magistrates’ Court to try to determine the ownership of the money. Magistrate John Doherty urged the claimants to settle. They did, with Mr Nugent and the property owner each taking $2000 and Mr Gregory $1645.
Case studies Finders keepers? Complete the following tasks related to the preceding case file.
- Read Cases A and B. How has the decision in Case B added to the legal principle established in Case A?
- Read Case C.
a Is the fact situation in Case C similar to the fact situation in Case A? Explain.
b Should the court follow the legal principle in Case A? Explain.
c The judge in this case decided that the legal principle in Case B did not apply. What are the differences between Case B and Case C? Explain.
d Does a judge have to apply the legal principles from a previous case when the fact situation is different?
e Based on the decisions in these three cases (A, B and C), how would you summarise the law of possession of found goods?
- Read Case D. Explain how the legal principles in Case B would apply to the facts in Case D.
- Read Case E.
a Using the legal principles in Cases A, B, C and E, what would you expect to be the outcome of Case D?
b In Case E, did the court follow the decision in Case B? Under what circumstances can a court decide not to follow the decision in a previous case? - 5 Read Case F.
a In Case F, police received several claims to ownership of the cash. Explain the law that would apply in determining the owner.
b To protect the public and to stop the dumping of rubbish, the railways had fenced off the area in which the money was found in Case F. Can the railways claim ownership of the money? - Read Case G. Do you consider the decision in Case G to be fair? Suggest reasons to support your view.