ANDERSON v. FORESMAN, 1 Ohio Ch. 598

Lane, J. That a person robbed, instantly states the fact, institutes a search, and prosecutes the offender, are circumstances for the jury. It would be difficult to establish such facts except by the attending circumstances. Such evidence is competent, as it would be for the plaintiff to show that at the time of the alleged robbery, the defendant remained silent, neither instituting search or prosecution. Lane, J.

A man must prosecute the thief who steals from him, or there can be no conviction — if he do so, and acts like an honest man, are his honest and proper acts inadmissible to show the fact of the larceny and conviction? It would seem to us unreasonable, if it were so. The objection is overruled. Fox, contra. Lane, J. to the jury. A person who takes bank notes to carry for another without reward, is bound to take the same care of them he does of his own. If he does not take such care and loss ensues, he is liable; if he takes such care and is robbed, the loss is not his.

If such bailee use the money given to him and substitute other money, which is stolen, the money he took becomes a debt for which he is liable. The $100 note you may throw out of view. If the defendant is liable at all, he is liable for the whole that was stolen — if not so liable, the $100 note is the plaintiff’s property, has been offered to him and he refused it, and is now in court for him to take if he choose, or if he still refuse, the defendant will hold it for his use when he demands it. Yerdict and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff then took the $100.