In France, the right is more practically understood. Thus, in July, 1863, a pot of louis-d’ors was found in the Rue Lafayette, in Paris, when the following adjustment was made.
One of the labourers while at work, struck his pick on to an earthen jar, which broke, and out of which rolled several pieces of gold. The other workmen hearing the sound, rushed round the spot, probably to obtain a share of the treasure, when the latter cried out “Stop! Form a ring around me, and then let no one move.” The others obeyed. He then quietly picked up the pieces of gold, which he placed in his hat, and, taking up the broken jar which contained the remainder, he stood in the midst of the circle, and said, “Now call a sergent-de-ville to accompany me to the nearest police-office, where I will deposit the money.” This was done, and the prize was found to consist of 978 gold louis-d’or of twenty-four livres each, bearing the effigies of Louis XV. and XVI., the whole amounting to more than 23,000f. The whole was forwarded to the Prefecture of Police, where it was to remain during the inquiry to discover the legitimate owners of the property. It is only after that has been done that the share, attributed by law to the finder of a treasure, will be paid to the lucky workman.
Principal and Agent.
There is a well-known case involving this point, in which the late Lord Abinger differed from the rest of the Court of Exchequer: a plaintiff had employed an agent to let a house for him, and the defendant asked the agent “if there was any objection to the house;” to which the agent in perfect good faith answered, there was not. It turned out, however, that the adjoining premises were of a disreputable character, of which the plaintiff was aware, although his agent was not. The defendant, on the discovery of the objection, refused to fulfil his written contract to take the house; and the question was, whether he was liable for a breach of the agreement. Lord Abinger thought he was not, but the rest of the Court thought he was, and so judgment was given for the plaintiff. Upon merely technical grounds, perhaps, the majority of the learned Barons were right; but no one can read the masterly opinion of Lord Abinger without feeling that the law ought to be as he laid it down, and on the broad and simple ground that in such a case the knowledge of the principal should be held to be the knowledge of the agent.
Legal Hints.
Although no book ever was or ever can be written to enable a man to dispense with the assistance of a lawyer in cases where a knowledge of the law is practically required, attention to certain hints may save him from many a scrape. Of this kind are the following from Lord St. Leonards’s Handy-Book: You should be cautious whom you employ as an auctioneer, for any loss by his insolvency would fall upon you; he is your agent. We may add, however, that he is the agent of both parties, buyer and seller; and for that reason his signature satisfies the Statute of Frauds, and binds both. Again, you may employ one person to bid for you at an auction when you sell property, to prevent its going beneath its value; but you must not employ more than one, for that would be considered unfair puffing. Never bid for a leasehold estate clogged with the condition that the production of a receipt for the last half-year’s rent shall be accepted as proof that all the lessee’s covenants were performed up to that period; for there may have been a prior breach of covenant, and the landlord may not have waived his right of entry for the forfeiture. Do not take possession of an estate until objections to the title are removed, for such a step would in some cases be held to be an acceptance of the title. Before you enter an auction-room make up your mind as to price, and do not be led away by the persuasions of the auctioneer, who is the agent of the seller, or the biddings of others. Do not sign a contract tendered to you by the auctioneer, unless a reciprocal contract is signed and delivered to you at the same time by him. In writing about the sale or purchase of an estate, you should always cautiously declare your offer not to be final, lest the other party should, by accepting the terms you mention in your letter, not intending them to be final, entrap you into a binding contract. Mind your fire insurances. Very few policies against fire, says Lord St. Leonards, are so framed as to render the company legally liable. If you have added an Arnot’s stove, or made any other important change in your mode of heating your house since your policy, you should call upon the Company to admit the validity of your policy by an endorsement on it.
Vitiating a Sale.
It is rather startling to hear an ex-Lord Chancellor saying, “Thus I have told you what truths you must disclose. I shall now tell you what falsehoods you may utter in regard to your estate.” Of course it is not meant that morally any falsehood may be told, but only that there are some which do not, at Law or in Equity, vitiate the contract of sale. And it is curious to see the distinctions taken in these falsehoods. They remind us of the difference in Roman Catholic theology between venial and mortal sins. Thus, you may falsely praise, that is, puff, your property. You may describe it as uncommonly rich water-meadow, although it is imperfectly watered. In selling an advowson you may falsely state that an avoidance of the living is likely to occur soon. You may say, as a mere puff, that your house is fit for a respectable family; but you may not say, in answer to inquiries, contrary to the fact, that the house is not damp. And you must disclose a right of sporting or of common over your estate, or a right to dig mines under it. The reason of such distinctions as given by the law—valeat quantum—is, that some statements are cautions to purchasers to make inquiries for themselves, and that concealments, to be material, must be of something that the party concealing is bound to state. Although Lord St. Leonards (in his Handy-Book of Property Law) does not allude to the point, we might, had we space, while upon this subject, enlighten our readers by a set of cases in which the law relating to bugs is elaborately laid down, and explain to them in what instances the presence of these domestic nuisances in inconvenient numbers does or does not affect a contract for taking a house. But we must be content to refer them to the leading authorities in the pleasant volumes of Meeson and Welsby, where they will find the law fully expounded.—Saturday Review.
Law of Gardens.
Some persons, when leaving a place, finding they could not remove the trees and shrubs, have them cut down; but they were actionable, for the law prohibits waste with malevolent intentions. The decision given in the case of Buckland v. Butterfield establishes this point; for “a tenant is liable to pay for the waste, if he cuts down or destroys,” &c. And it has also been decided by Lord Denman, Mr. Justice Littledale, and Mr. Justice Parke, that a tenant could not remove a border of box, planted in the garden by himself; but that it belonged to the landlord, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary. In the course of the argument the counsel for the tenant asked, “Could not the tenant remove flowers which he had planted in the ground?” Mr. Justice Littledale instantly said, “No.”