Haskell v. Davidson

• Decision Date: 30 April 1808
• Parties: HASKELL et al. v. DAVIDSON.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

40 A. 330

91 Me. 488

HASKELL et al.

v. DAVIDSON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

April 30, 1808.

(Official.)

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, York county.

Action by Millard F. Haskell and others against James T. Davidson. Finding for plaintiffs, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.

The bill of exceptions in this case shows that the presiding justice, before whom it was tried without the intervention of a jury, filed a written decision, in which he gave judgment for the plaintiffs. In this decision the presiding justice further stated: "The fact that the full demands of public justice have been in any degree disregarded by the officers of the government, in allowing the respondent Thompson to go at large, without punishment, after conviction, cannot affect the plaintiff's title to the reward."

H. H. Burbank and John C. Stewart, for plaintiffs.

B. F. Hamilton and B. F. Cleaves, for defendant.

WISWELL, J. Exceptions to the ruling of the justice, who heard the case without the intervention of a jury, that the defendant was liable upon the following facts found by him:

The defendant was one of 30 citizens who agreed to pay $10 each as a reward "for the arrest and conviction of the person or persons who entered the room of Alexander Wilson, and stole $35 therefrom." The plaintiffs were informed of this offer, and were thereby induced to enter upon an investigation of the crime referred to, as a result of which, facts and circumstances were discovered by them tending strongly to inculpate one Harry Thompson, who, upon being found and confronted with the charge by the plaintiffs, made a full confession of his guilt, and subsequently pleaded guilty to the indictment found against him by the grand jury. But the formal arrest of the respondent on the capias issued by the court was made by a deputy sheriff. That officer makes no claim, however, as found by the court, to any part of the reward.

An offer of reward is a proposal. The party making it may insert his own terms, and no person can become entitled to the reward without a performance of all the terms contained in the proposal. But such performance need not be a literal compliance with the terms of the offer. It is sufficient if the party claiming the reward has substantially performed the service required by the proposal.

An offer of a reward for "the arrest and conviction" of an offender cannot be taken literally. The person who by reason of the offer is induced to make an investigation, and finally obtains possession of sufficient facts to authorize the arrest of an offender, and his subsequent conviction, for the crime referred to in the offer, certainly cannot himself convict the offender....