“Yes,” she replied; “a case of bailment.”
“O, very well; walk in,” said he.
There was a sofa at one side of the room, and he seated the children all there, while he drew up his arm-chair directly before them. He then told them to proceed. Rollo first told the whole story, closing his statement by saying,
“And so I let him have my fish; and that was a bailment, and it was not for my benefit, but his, and so he ought to have taken very especial care of it. But he did not, and lost it, and so he ought to pay.”
“But we maintain,” said Mary, “that the fish was not bailed to Henry at all. Rollo only gave him back the dipper, and, though the fish was in it, still the fish did not do Henry any good, and so it was not for his benefit.”
“It seems to be rather an intricate case,” said her father, smiling.
Henry looked rather sober and anxious. The proceedings seemed to him to be a very serious business.
However, Rollo’s father spoke to him in a very kind and good-humored tone, so that, before long, he began to feel at his ease. After hearing a full statement of the case, and all the arguments which the children had to offer on one side or the other, Rollo’s father began to give his decision, as follows:—
“I think that Rollo’s giving Henry the dipper, with the fish in it, was clearly a bailment of the fish; that is, it was an intrusting of his property to Henry’s care. It is clear also that Henry took pretty good care of it. He tried to avoid losing it. He took as much care of it, perhaps, as he would have done of a fish of his own. Still, he did not take very extraordinary or special care of it. The loss was not owing to inevitable accident. If the bailment was for Rollo’s benefit, the care he took was sufficient to save him from being liable; but, if it was for his own benefit, then all he did was at his own risk; and the loss ought to be his loss, and he ought to pay for it.”
“But I don’t see,” said Mary, “that he was to blame in either case.”