FINDERS KEEPERS

You're still thinking about that Stoke-on-Trent lady who picked up a £20 note dropped on a shop floor by another customer and kept it. She was prosecuted for theft and pleaded guilty. She was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £175 costs so she is running at a considerable loss.

Generally, where do you legally stand when confronted with the prospect of a quick profit? Unless you are passing a shipwreck and have the ability to pocket the hull or are in game with your three year old daughter,  forget the idea of finders keepers because you too could earn yourself a criminal charge. BUT you will not be guilty of theft unless you acted dishonestly. So if you keep the money or other property you have come across and you genuinely thought you were legally entitled to do so then that won't be dishonest and won't be guilty of theft. In the case of property other than money which you find, it would not be dishonest to keep it believing it had been abandoned by the owner. The crazier the idea that you genuinely thought you could do what you did, the more likely the court will conclude you have been dishonest. Hiding what you have picked up under your raincoat or looking around to check that nobody is watching would suggest dishonesty. And you may have an uphill task explaining why you did not hand over what you found to a member of staff or at least told them what you had done and given them your name and address. And why not report the find to the police?

If convicted of the theft of money the court is likely to order you to repay it to the owner. Should it not do so then the owner can sue you for its return in the county court.

TIGGER BACK HOME

You know about the microchipped cat Tigger who vanished in 2012.  Three weeks ago his Staffordshire owner Karen Young heard from the microchip database to which another lady had applied to be registered as Tigger's owner. Mrs Young could not extract details of the other lady from the database people because of data protection legislation. So Mrs Young had the police intervene and now Tigger is back with Mrs Young. The lady who handed him back insists that she bought Tigger in good faith in 2012.

Where do you stand legally when you lose your property or you have lent it out and whoever has it will not hand it back, be it an animal or a diamond ring? As a general rule, you have six years to sue in a civil court for its return. Those six years start from when it was picked up by someone else or from when it should have been returned to whoever you entrusted it. If you don't sue within the six years then you lose your ownership of the property. The fact that whoever now has the property acted in all innocence and even paid someone for the property is irrelevant. The court might be prepared to extend the six years where whoever has the property has concealed the fact that they have it.

But the position is different when the property has been actually stolen. Then the owner does not lose their ownership after six years and could sue the original thief and anyone who comes into possession of the property - whenever. Pin back you lugholes for the exception. It's when someone has purchased from the thief and acted in good faith. Then the purchaser can only be successfully sued within six years of their purchase.

In the case of Tigger, it is unlikely that the lady who returned him would have had any defence to a claim for his return by Mrs Young, despite her innocence in the affair, and she was prudent to have returned him.