DUTY OF FINDERS

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 27, 31 July 1936, Page 11

DUTY OF FINDERS

NOT UNDERSTOOD

THE LEGAL POSITION

"It is a great pity that provision is not made in the Police Offences Act or the Justices of the Peace Act setting out the duties of the public in respect of goods which they find," said Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court today, when a father and son, whose names were ordered to be suppressed, were charged with theft of a wristlet watch, which the father had found in Aro Street in 1934. The father was in hospital, and the son, who wanted to get him out, had pawned the watch to pay for a taxi. Neither had seen an advertisement about the watch.

The law as to the rights and liabilities of people who found articles in the street was by no means clearlyunderstood, Mr. Luxford said. There were quite a number of people who, with no dishonest intent whatever, acted on the belief that "finds were keeps," and there were many circumstances in which they were fully justified in keeping what they had found. It was unfortunate that in many cases —such as the one before the Court, in which there was clearly no dishonest intent—finders should have to be brought before the Court and charged with the serious offence of theft. If the offence was stated in the Police Offences Act the law would be simple, clear, and certain to all. Perhaps some provision might be made regarding the deposit of things found at the nearest police station. If some proper provision were made regarding these cases, people would not misunderstand their obligations. Senior-Sergeant J. Dempsey said that both father and son were of good character. Tiie father had watched the papers, but had not seen the advertisement which had appeared regarding this watch.

Mr. Luxford said that he would take advantage of section 18 of the

Offenders Probation Act, which gave power to discharge the defendants without sentence.