WHOSE MONEY?

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20330, 13 June 1934, Page 5

WHOSE MONEY?

Children Found Large Sum in Churchyard. A SATISFACTORY DECISION. (Special to the “ Star.") SYDNEY, June 6. On March 29, 1933, two girls aged 11 and 9 years, when on their way home from school at Hurlstone Park (five miles from Sydney) went into the grounds of the Methodist Church to look at the inscription on the foundation stone. On the cement path they found a calico bag, and inside it were a number of notes. They showed the bag to two other girls who were waiting for them outside, and took the money home to their parents. The bag contained £286 in notes of various denominations, including one £SO note issued in 1920, and other smaller notes of later date. The parents of the two girls who had found the bag reported the matter to the police and handed over the money. The police made every possible effort to discover the owner, but without success, and the parents then natur-. ally expected that the money would be returned to them. But they were confronted by a demand from the trustees of the Methodist Church, on whose property the notes were found, that the money should be handed over to them; and the parents of the two girls who had stood waiting at the gate and had been thus in a sense accessories to the find, also asked for consideration. The Popular View. The case attracted a good deal of attention, because, in view of the fact that the owner of the money could not be discovered, public opinion was strongly in favour of giving the money to the children, in conformity with the popular view that “ finding is keeping.” It was pointed out that, to deprive the children of their just reward would be a poor return for their hon-

esty and would deter them'and other children from restoring lost property in future.

As to the trustees of the Methodist Church, apart from the vague contention that anything found on their property might be supposed to belong to them, they put forward the curious argument that “ there is a high probability that the money was intended to be donated for the extension of the Church’s activities.”

This “ probability ” was dealt with in satire vein by a number of critics, -who felt that the children were not being fairly treated; but ‘it became ’clear from statements made by the Commissioner of Police and other authorities that the money was likely to go to the trustees. * Indemnity Wanted.

However inequitable such a proceeding might seem, there was good legal ground for it—or at least, a good legal excuse. For it was pointed out that, if the money were handed over to anybody by the police and the rightful owner appeared subsequently, he would have a good case for damages or reparation.

The Crown, therefore, would not surrender the money unless it were indemnified by the recipients against future loss, and as the parents of the finders, poor people, could not possibly guarantee to indemnify the Crown and the Methodist Church could, the money would go to its trustees. No doubt this course would have been adopted if it had not been for the storm of public protests called up by what appeared to be an act of obvious injustice. It seemed that, because the parents of the two girls were too poor to protect their rights, they were to be penalised, and the Church, because of its wealth, was to assert its claim above them.

After same hesitation and further delay to allow time for the owner to appear, the Commissioner of Police recommended that, as he could not take the responsibility of deciding between the claimants, they should proceed by way of “ inter-pleader summons," which would enable them all to state a case for the judicial authorities.

All this took a long time, and it was not till this week—nearly 15 months after the money was found—that the Protho-notary, whose duty it is to settle such matters, -gave his decision. At the last moment, however, the position of affairs had been clarified, for the two girls who had waited at the churchyard gate withdrew their claims, and the trustees of the Methodist Church, feeling, no doubt, that they had placed themselves in a rather invidious position, offered to withdraw, if their costs were paid. So in the end, Jill Montgomery, aged 11, and Patricia Head, aged 9—or their parents—are the fortunate possessors of £286, less 14 guineas costs paid dn behalf of the Methodist Church, and 10 guineas paid to the Crown as costs of the inter-pleader summonses. ' The general opinion is that the ending is a satisfactory one; but the case may have done some good by drawing public attention to the strange views which the law holds about lost property and the grave disadvantage to which the poor are often exposed when they wish to support even fust and legitimate claims by an appeal to the Courts.