225/3 8 Ves. 405; 7 M. & W. 623; Stephen, Crim. Law, Art. 281, Ill. (4), p. 197. He says, "because [the owner of the safe] cannot be presumed to intend to act as the owner of it when he discovers it,"—a reason drawn from Savigny, but not fitted to the English law, as has been shown.
226 ([return])
226/1 Y.B. 13 Ed. IV. 9, 10, pl. 5; 21 Hen. VII. 14, pl. 21. Cf. 3 Hen. VII. 12, pl. 9; Steph. Crim. Law, Art. 297, and App., note xvii.
226/2 Steph. Crtre. Law, Art. 297, and App., note xvii. p. 882. It may be doubted whether the old law would have sanctioned the rule in this form. F. N. B. 91 E; Y.B. 2 Ed. IV. 15, pl. 7.
226/3 Y.B. 21 Hen. VII. 14, pl. 21; 13 Co. Rep. 69.
227 ([return])
227/1 They have been said to be a part of the family pro hac vice. Southcote v. Stanley, 1 H. & N. 247, 250. Cf. Y.B. 2 Hen. IV. 18, pl. 6.
227/2 Moore, 248, pl. 392; S.C., Owen, 52; F. N. B. 91 E; 2 B1. Comm. 396; 1 H. Bl. 81, 84; 1 Chitty, Pl. 170 (1st ed.); Dicey, Parties, 358; 9 Mass. 104; 7 Cowen, 294; 3 S. & R. 20; 13 Iredell, 18; 6 Barb. 362, and cases cited. Some of the American cases have been denied, on the ground that the custodian was not a servant. Cf. Holiday v. Hicks, Cro. Eliz. 638, 661, 746; Drope v. Theyar, Popham, 178, 179.