As to the criminal responsibility of the find er, the result of the authorities is that if a man finds goods that have been actually lost, or are reasonably supposed by him to have been lost, and appropriates them, with in tent to take the entire dominion over them, really believing when he takes them that the owner cannot be found, it is not larceny ; but if he takes them with the like intent, though lost or reasonably supposed to be lost, but reasonably believing that the owner can be found, it is larceny ; Baker v. State, 29 Ohio St. 184, 23 Am. Rep. 731; 2 C. & K. 841; Wol fington v. State, 53 Ind. 343; Flemister v. State, 121 Ga. 146, 48 S. E. 910; State v. Stev ens, 2 Pennewill (Del.) 486, 49 Atl. 174 ; State v. Hoshaw, 89 Minn. 307, 94 N. W. 873.
If a finder attempts to retain lost property as against the owner, or converts it to his own use, when he knows the owner, he will be guilty of larceny ; Lawrence v. State, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 228, 34 Am. Dec. 644 ; Pritch ett v. State, 2 Sneed. (Tenn.) 285, 62 Am. Dec.
468. See as to this rule and its qualifica tion Broom, Com., 4th ed. 955; Porter v. State, Mart. & Y. (Tenn.) 226. There must be a felonious intent ; Com. v. Titus, 116 Mass. 42, 17 Am. Rep. 138, and note. Though it is the duty of the finder to seek out the owner and restore the property with due dili gence ; State v. Hoshaw, 89 Minn. 307, 94 N. W. 873 ; Pen. Code N. Y. § 539 ; yet the want of promptness on the part of the finder does not prove felonious intent in keeping the property ; Peters v. Bourneau, 22 Ill. App. 177. The question is, whether the finder, when he came into possession, believed the owner could be found; 2 Green, Cr. L. Rep. 35. In Regina v. Thurborn, Parke, B., ob serves that it cannot be doubted that if, at this day, the punishment of death was as signed to theft and usually carried into ef fect, the misappropriation of lost goods would never be held to constitute that of fence. Whart. Cr. L. §' 901. See LARCENY; BAILMENT; SALVAGE; TREASURE TROVE.