Part 24

"O yes," said Rollo, who now recollected his father's conversation on that subject some days before.

"And so, you know, the question," continued Mary, "whether he ought to pay or not, depends upon circumstances."

"Well," said Rollo, who began to recall to mind the principles which his father had laid down upon the subject, "it was for his benefit, not mine, and so he ought to pay."

All this conversation about bailment, and about its being for his benefit, not Rollo's, was entirely unintelligible to Henry, who had never studied the law of bailment at all. He looked first at Mary, and then at Rollo, and finally said,

"I don't understand what you mean."

So Mary explained to him what her father had said. She told him, first, that whenever one boy intrusted his property of any kind to the hands of another boy, it was a bailment; and that the question whether the one who took the thing ought to pay for it, if it was lost, depended upon the degree of care he took of it, considered in connection with the question, whether the bailment was for the benefit of the bailor, or the bailee.

"What is bailor and the bailee?" said Henry.

"Why, Rollo bailed you his fish," said Mary. "Rollo was bailor, and you bailee."

"No," said Henry, "he only gave me back my dipper, and the fish was in it."

Mary asked for an explanation of this, and the boys related all the circumstances. Mary said it was an intricate case.

"I don't understand it exactly," said Mary. "You returned him his property which you had borrowed, and at the same time put into his hands some property of your own. I don't know whether it ought to be considered as only giving him back his dipper, or bailing him the fish."

"I did not want the fish," said Henry.

"No," said Mary. "It is a knotty case. Let us go and ask father about it."

"O, I don't want to go," said Henry.

"Yes, I would," said Mary. "I'll be your lawyer, and manage your side of the question for you; and we will get a regular decision."

"Well," said Henry, reluctantly. And all the children followed Mary and Lucy towards the house.

They found Rollo's father in his room, examining some maps and plans which were spread out upon the table before him. When he saw the children coming in, he asked Mary, who was foremost, what they wanted. She said they had a law question, which they wanted him to decide.

"A law question?" said he.

"Yes," she replied; "a case of bailment."

"O, very well; walk in," said he.

There was a sofa at one side of the room, and he seated the children all there, while he drew up his arm-chair directly before them. He then told them to proceed. Rollo first told the whole story, closing his statement by saying,

"And so I let him have my fish; and that was a bailment, and it was not for my benefit, but his, and so he ought to have taken very especial care of it. But he did not, and lost it, and so he ought to pay."

"But we maintain," said Mary, "that the fish was not bailed to Henry at all. Rollo only gave him back the dipper, and, though the fish was in it, still the fish did not do Henry any good, and so it was not for his benefit."

"It seems to be rather an intricate case," said her father, smiling.

Henry looked rather sober and anxious. The proceedings seemed to him to be a very serious business.

However, Rollo's father spoke to him in a very kind and good-humored tone, so that, before long, he began to feel at his ease. After hearing a full statement of the case, and all the arguments which the children had to offer on one side or the other, Rollo's father began to give his decision, as follows:--

"I think that Rollo's giving Henry the dipper, with the fish in it, was clearly a bailment of the fish; that is, it was an intrusting of his property to Henry's care. It is clear also that Henry took pretty good care of it. He tried to avoid losing it. He took as much care of it, perhaps, as he would have done of a fish of his own. Still, he did not take very extraordinary or special care of it. The loss was not owing to inevitable accident. If the bailment was for Rollo's benefit, the care he took was sufficient to save him from being liable; but, if it was for his own benefit, then all he did was at his own risk; and the loss ought to be his loss, and he ought to pay for it."

"But I don't see," said Mary, "that he was to blame in either case."