A portion of the money he had paid out for a suit of clothes, which was also given u P The pocket book contained receipts given to the prosecutor, in which his name was inserted at lengt HIt was proved that the prisonei could read; that he told the officer, when he was arrested, that when he first found it he supposed it belonged to Mr Lawrence, but on opening it, and finding the receipts, he knew it belonged to the prosecuto R He said if he got another pocket book he would know what to do with it; that the officer would not get it so easily.

The officer had to search him before it was found Bloore, for the prisoner, insisted that the pocket book had been lost, and that the prisoner was the bonajide finder of it, and could not be convicted of larceny, by a fraudulent conver- sion.

He cited The People v Anderson, 14 J R 294 Ellis (Dist Att'y) cited The People v McGowan, 17 Wend 460 WILLARD, Circuit Judge (after recapitulating the evidence and defining the crime of grand larceny), observed: It has been said that if a man lose goods, and another find them, and not knowing the owner converts them to his own use, it is no larceny.

This rule supposes that the finder acts bonajide, is ignorant of the owner, and may, therefore, have a warrantable ground to suppose that the goods will never be claimed, and the owner will never be discovered Such seems to have been the view of the supreme court in the case of The People v Jlnderson, cited by the prisoner's counseL The particulars of that case are not detailed, but it is assumed that the owner had lost the goods, and that the defendant was an honest finde R The law, however, clearly holds a prisoner guilty criminally who knowing the owner, converts the property to his own usE It is the duty of the finder to restore property which he has found to the rightful owner, and if there are marks upon it, by which the owner can be ascertained, or if he has reasonable ground to believe who the owner is, he will be guilty of lar- ceny if he convert it to his own usE In the present case, the pocket book and money can not be said to have been lost, in the strict technical sense of the term The prosecutor left it by accident, for a few minutes, in an un- usual place, but knew where it was lefT If the prisoner, when he discovered it, had no reasonable ground to believe that it had been abandoned by its owner, or that its owner never would be found if he knew whose property it was, before he converted it to his own use if he took no means to restore it to its owner, but on the contrary fled and endeavored to con- ceal it, and appropriated it to his own use, the jury will be warranted in finding him guilty.

The jury found the prisoner guilty and he was sentenced to the state prison for three years and six monthS On a trial for murder, the dying declarations of the deceased, that is, declara- tions made under the apprehension of death, are competent evidence against the prisoner; but before such declarations are received, it must be satisfacto- rily proved that the deceased, at the time of making them, was conscious of the danger and had given up all hope of recovery.