1 Strange 505
The plaintiff was a chimney-sweeper's boy who found a jewel.1 He took the jewel to the shop of the defendant, a goldsmith operating in Middlesex.2
The boy delivered the jewel into the hands of the defendant's apprentice.3 The apprentice, under the pretense of weighing the jewel, removed the stones from it.4 The apprentice then called to the master and announced that the item was worth three halfpence.5
The master offered the boy the sum of three halfpence for the jewel.6 The boy refused the money and demanded that the jewel itself be returned to him.7 Instead, the apprentice gave back only the socket without the stones.8
During the proceedings before Chief Justice Pratt, several members of the trade were called to testify about the value of a jewel that would fit the socket.9 The Chief Justice provided directions to the jury on how to assess the damages in the case.10
Whether the finder of a jewel has such a property in it as will enable him to maintain trover?11
The finder of a jewel, though he does not thereby acquire absolute ownership, has such a property in it as will enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner; consequently he may maintain trover.12
Yes. The plaintiff as finder acquired a limited property interest sufficient to support trover. The chimney-sweeper's boy found the jewel and carried it to the goldsmith's shop, giving him rights enforceable against everyone except the true owner. This possessory interest was established when the boy took the jewel into his possession after discovering it, enabling him to bring the action of trover against the defendant who wrongfully retained part of it.13
The finder of a jewel possesses a property interest adequate to maintain an action of trover.14
Whether the action in trover lies against the master who is answerable for his apprentice's neglect?15
The action lies against the master, who gives credit to his apprentice and is answerable for his neglect.16
Yes. Liability extends to the master for the apprentice's conduct during the transaction. The defendant goldsmith employed the apprentice who removed the stones, rendering the master responsible in the trover action brought by the boy. The master is answerable because he gave credit to the apprentice in the shop, making him liable for the neglect that occurred when the stones were taken out under pretense of weighing.17
The action in trover lies against the master for the apprentice's neglect.18
Whether the jury should make the value of the best jewels the measure of their damages unless the defendant produces the jewel?19
As to the value of the jewel, several members of the trade were examined to prove what a jewel of the finest water that would fit the socket would be worth. The Chief Justice directed the jury that, unless the defendant produced the jewel and showed it not to be of the finest water, they should presume the strongest against him and make the value of the best jewels the measure of their damages; the jury accordingly did so.20
Yes. The jury received an instruction to presume maximum value when the defendant failed to produce the jewel. Trade members testified on the worth of a finest-water jewel fitting the socket, and the Chief Justice directed the jury to apply that highest value as damages absent contrary proof from the defendant. This presumption against the defendant arose directly from his failure to produce the jewel for examination during the trial.21
The jury should measure damages by the value of the best jewels unless the defendant produces the jewel.22