FINDINGS NOT KEEPINGS

Taranaki Daily News, 20 July 1929, Page 6

FINDINGS NOT KEEPINGS

WAREA YOUTH’S NARROW ESCAPE MONEY FOUND AT BEACH. That the old adage of “finding is keeping” is not only bad in law and bad in sense was forcibly stressed by Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., at Opunake yesterday in dealing with a case in which a lad, whose name was suppressed, was charged that at Opunake on February 13 he stole two postal notes to the value of 15b and about 5s in money, the property of Samuel James Clegg. Constable Clouston said the case arose out of an incident that occurred at the Opunake beach when several school picnics were held there. Clegg, a farmer at Oaonui, had gone in for a swim, leaving his clothes in tho. bathing shed, and on his return the money was missing. He knew the numbers of the postal notes and advised tho police and the postmaster at Opunake. Tho notes, which bore the name of S. J. Clegg, were recovered at Warea.

Evidence was given by Clegg, who said that he did not think the money would have fallen out of his trouser pockets unless the clothes had been shifted and shaken. Cross-examined by Mr. R. H. Quilliam, witness said it was a busy day at the beach and numbers of people had accessto the bathing shed. Cyril ; Moss, storekeeper at Warea, gave evidence as to having cashed the 10s note for defendant, who had said he had found it in his clothes at the Opunake bathing shed after he had been in for a swim. He had held the note for some time but no one had claimed it. Witness did not think it strange being asked to cash a postal note that was not endorsed, as in connection with the bobby calf industry he had cashed a number that -were not endorsed and had passed them through his banking account.

Cross-examined, witness said ho had no hesitation in cashing the note as defendant was quite open in the matter. Witness had known him for many years and had always found him a thoroughly reliable lad, and hie parents were people of undoubted integrity and were held in high esteem in the district where they had resided many years. John Aylward, fanner at Warea, gave evidence that he was in the bathing shed when defendant said that he had “a find” and showed witness tho money. Defendant did not give any indication as to where ,ho found the money. William Frederick Johns, a labourer of Warea, deposed that defendant showed him some money after they were dressed and said he had found it in the bathing shed. Witness noticed that the postal notes were payable to Clegg, He could not remember if defendant asked witness whether he had lost any money. Constable Brenchley stated that after being warned defendant explained that he had found the money and had asked •Johns if it was his. Ho had kept it pending inquiry but had not advertised or taken it to th© police. He had told his mother of the incident. Mr. R. 11. Quilliam said that he recognised the difficulty of proving innocence in these cases and he must admit that the lad had acted foolishly. It was another case of the danger of the belief that ho who finds keeps. The lad from his training on a country farm, however, could not bo judged by tho samo standard, say, as a lad in a commercial office who would be expected to know what to do with anything he found. He submitted that the lad’s character, the open way in which he showed tho money when he found it without any attempt at concealment, and tho fact that after holding it for some time he had changed it at his local storekeeper’s was not consistent with stealing the money and J supported the story that he had found it, though counsel admitted that story had its weakness.

Counsel called defendant, who gave evidence that he was 194 years of age and bad resided on his parents’ farm at Warea all his life. His statement to Constable Brenchley was true. He had asked Johns whether the money was his and had held the money for several weeks so as to see if any one advertised for it. The money went to defendant’s credit at the New Plymouth post office. He could get money whenever he required it from his parents and his post office bank book, which was submitted to the court, showed that he had a substantial credit. Ho first knew of th’e existence of Clegg when ho returned from camp in March, but he did not connect the name with that on the postal note. If the owner turned up he would have been only too pleased to return the money, but it never occurred to him to inform tho police as it was tho first occasion that he had found money.

The magistrate said that people must definitely understand that when they find a thing they cannot keep it. The old adage that “findings is keepings” led people into trouble because it was a very common plea for a real thief to make. If a person found a thing it was his business to try to find the owner, and if the owner could not be found tho article should be handed to the police, on whom the responsibility would then be thrown. Failure to do that led, as in this case, to trial and perhaps conviction. The character of the lad in this case enabled the magistrate to accept his story, but if he had been friendless or a lad whose character was difficult to prove it might have been different. If people got it into their heads that “finding was keeping” they must not complain if they were convicted. In this case there was a narrow margin of safety and he would dismiss the charge. An order was made for the suppression of the name of defendant and an undertaking was given that the money would be refunded to Clegg and witnesses’ expenses paid.