Law Report, April 22 KING'S BENCH DIVISION GOLF BALLS LOST ON LINKS: CONVICIMON OF STEALING UPHELD HIBBERT v. McKIERNAN Before the'LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE HUmPHIEYS, and Mlt. JUSnCE PRITCHARD Tbe COURT dismnissed the appeal, by case stated, of Mr. Harold Hibbert, of Shaw Heath, Stockport, who was charged by the respondent, Police-constable Frederick McKiernan, before Stockport justices with stealing, on October 4, 1947, eight golf balls valued at 10s., the pro- perty of the secretary and members of the Reddish Vale Golf Club. The justices con- victed the appellant and fined him 20s. At the hearing the following facts, among others, were proved. When the appellant was arrested on the Reddish Vale Golf Links on October 4, 1947, he had in his possession eight golf balls, which he had picked up on the links on that day atid which had been abandoned by the original owners. He gave a false name and address, denied possession of golf balls, and later stated that he knew he had no right to take them. The links, to which the appellant had no right of access, were the joint property of the members of the club. The respondent contended, inter alia, that tbere was sufficient evidence of knowledge on the Dart of the owners of the land (the golf. club) to bring the golf balls within their de facto control; that evidence of the intention of the club to exercise control over the golf balls was provided by the fact that a Pnolce officer was On special duty on the links, apDarently to detect and apprehend persnsa takting olf bals; that. having regard to the conduct of the apDeliant when questioned, the taking of the golf balls was fraudulent and without a ClaiM of right made in good faith; that, even though the glf balls were not capable of identification by their original owners, the club members collectively had a definite interest in their recovery: and that the appellant was a trespasser and as such could obtain no title. The appellant contended, inter alia, that the golf club and the members collectively were not entitled to the Property in the golf bals found on their links and were not in Possession of them merely by reason that.they w/ere tng on the sturface of their land; and that he did not, therefore, take the golf balls.from thegol cub ndthememer coietirlywithn the meaning of sectio'n 1of the Learceny ?Act. t the1916. The justices held that the club were the owners of the golf balls within the meaning of section 1 of the Act of 1916 ; that the golf oalls could be stolen; and that the appellant whas, on the facts proved, guilty of stealing Mr. Hibbert appealed. Mr. E. Garth Moore and Mr. Geoffrey Lane appeared for the appellant; Mr. H. Heathcote- Williams for the respondent. JUDGMENT The LORD CUnP JUSTIcE, in a written judg- ment, said that, though the justices were of opinion that the appellant stole and meant to steal the balUs, the case went on to state at considerable length the questions of law which they considered to arise; in the main. whether the appellant acquired, by finding the balls, a title to them which would prevail against the club as the owners of the land on which they were found. That led them to con- sider a line of cases on the title to chattels found on the land of a person who was neither the finder nor the original owner. The most conspicuous were Bridges v. Hawkesworth ((1851) 15 Jur. 1079), Elwes v. Brigg Gas Com- pany ((1886) 2 The Times L.R. 782; 33 Ch. D. 562), and South Staffordshire Water Company v. Sharman (12 The Times L.R. 402; [1896] 2 Q.B. 44), Those cases had long been the delight of professors and text-book writers whose task it often was to attempt to reconcile the irrecon- cilable. Both the Corpus Professor of Juris- prudence at Oxford 'and the Professor Emeritus of English Law at Cambridge had expressed the opinion that Bridges v. Hawkes- worth (supra) was wrongly decided. If it was, the difficulty largely disappeared ; but that much battered case had lately been reinvigo- rated by Mr. Justice Birkett in Hannah v. Peel (61 The Times L.R. 502; 11945] K.B. 509) It was, however, still for wiser fieads than his (his Lordship's) to end a controversy which would no doubt continue to form an appropri- ate subject for students' moots until the House of Lords laid it to rest for all time. He gladly paid tribute to the gallant and laborious effort of the Stockport justices to resolve the conflict. It would be disappoint- ing to them to know that those interesting questions did not arise here. Here was a charge of larceny. The thief had taken the balls anihno furandi. It was not the case of an honest man firiding an article on the land of another, proclaiming the fact, and eventually claiming a possessory title against the owner of the land. Every householder and land- owner intended to exclude thieves from his property, and that conferred on him a special property in goods found on his land sufficient to support an indictment if the goods were taken not under a-claim of right, but with a felonious intent. That was the decision in Rex v. Rowe ((1859) 23 J.P. 117), where the prisoner was convicted of stealing from the bed of a canal iron which had fallen or been thrown from barges. The theft alleged bere was of golf balls from a golf course. On every course golf balls must be lost, to be retrieved when the grass was cut or someone had time to look for them. There was clearly no licence by the club to all and sundry to go on to the course and take what they could find. The facts showed that the club did mean to exclude pilferers though their officials did not know at any given moment the position or number of the golf balls which might be lying about on their property. Here any difficulty might have been avoided by descnhling at any rate seven of the golf balls as the property of persons unknown. At the present day allegations concerning the ownership of stolen property were, apart from a few exceptional cases, treated as immaterial. The appeal was dismissed. MR. JUSTICE HUMPHREYS and MR. JUSTICE PRITCHARD read concurring judgments. Solicitors.-Messrs. Sayer, Ledgard and Smith, for Messrs. Smith, Fort and Svmonds, Stockport; Messrs. Gregory, Rowcliffe and Co., for the Town Clerk, Stockport. V* The case will be reported in The Times Law Reports. Law Report, April 22 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE