Part 25

"O, no," said his father; "he was not to blame for losing the fish, perhaps. That is not the point in these cases. It is not a question of who is to blame, but who ought to bear a loss, for which perhaps nobody is to blame.

"And you see," he continued, "that it is reasonable that the loss should be borne by the person who was to have derived benefit from the risk. If the risk was run for Henry's benefit, then he ought to bear the loss; which he would do by making Rollo compensation. If the risk was run for Rollo's benefit, then Rollo ought to bear the loss himself."

"Yes, sir," said Rollo; "and it certainly was for Henry's benefit, for he was trying to catch another fish for himself,--not for me. I had no advantage in it."

"That is not so certain," replied his father. "It depends altogether upon the question, who had a right to the dipper at that time. If Henry had a right to the dipper, then he might have even poured out the water, fish and all; or he might have kept the fish in, to accommodate Rollo. On the other hand, if Rollo had a right to the dipper then, and he let Henry have it, as a favor to him, then, in that case, the bailment was for Henry's benefit."

"Well, sir," said Henry, "I had a right to the dipper, for it was mine; and so it was for his benefit, and I ought not to pay."

"No, sir," said Rollo; "he had let me have it, and I let him have my basket."

"I only lent it to him," said Henry.

"But you lent it to me for the whole walk," said Rollo, turning round to Henry.

"You must only speak to me," said his father. "In all debates and arguments, always speak to the one who is presiding."

"Well, sir," said Rollo, turning back to his father, again, "he lent it to me for the whole walk, and so I don't think he had any right to take it back again."

"That is coming to the point exactly," said his father. "It all depends upon that,--whether Henry had a right to reclaim his dipper at that time, after only lending it to Rollo. And that, you see, is another bailment case. Henry bailed Rollo the dipper. This shows the truth of what I said before, that a great many of the disputes among boys arise from cases of bailment. This seems to be a sort of doubled and twisted case. And it all hinges on the question whether Henry or Rollo had the right to the dipper at the time when Henry took it. For, as I have already explained, if Henry had a right to it, then his keeping Rollo's fish in it was for Rollo's advantage, and Rollo ought to bear the loss. But if Rollo had a right to keep the dipper longer, then he bailed the fish to him, in order to be able to let him have the dipper, for he could not let him have the one without the other; and so it was for Henry's benefit; and, as the loss was not from inevitable accident, Henry ought to bear it."

"Well, sir, and now please to tell us," said Mary, "who had the right to the dipper."

"Rollo," said her father.

"Rollo!" exclaimed several voices.

"Yes," replied Rollo's father. "There is a principle in the law of bailment which I did not explain to you the other day. It is this: Whenever a person bails a thing to another person, for a particular purpose, and receives a compensation for it, the bailor has no right to take it back again from the bailee, until a fair opportunity has been allowed to accomplish that purpose. For instance, if I go and hire a horse of a man to make a journey, I have a right to keep the horse until the journey is ended. If the owner of the horse meets me on the road, fifty miles from home, it is not reasonable, you see, that he should have the right to take the horse away from me there, on the ground that it is his horse, and that he has a right to him wherever he finds him. So, if one boy lends another his knife to make a whistle with, he ought not to take it away again, when the boy has got his whistle half done, and so make him lose all his labor."

"Why, it seems to me he ought to give it back to him," said Rollo, "if it is his knife, whenever he wants it."

"Yes," replied his father, "he ought to give it up, no doubt, if the owner claims it; and yet perhaps the owner might do wrong in claiming it. Though I am not certain, after all, how it is in case a thing is lent gratuitously."

"What is gratuitously?" said Rollo.

"Why, for nothing; without any pay. Perhaps the bailor has a right to claim his property again, at any time, if it is bailed gratuitously, though I am not certain. I will ask some lawyer when I have an opportunity. But when a thing is let for pay, or bailed on contract in any way, I am sure the bailor ought to leave it in the hands of the bailee, until the purpose is accomplished; or, at least, until there has been a fair opportunity to accomplish it.

"Wherefore I decide that, as Henry intended to let Rollo have the dipper for the whole expedition, and as he took Rollo's basket, and Rollo agreed to let him have some drink, as conditions, therefore, he ought not to have reclaimed the dipper. Since he did reclaim it, Rollo did perfectly right to give it up, fish and all; and as he did so, it was a bailment for the benefit of the bailee, that is, Henry. And of course it was at his risk, and, in strict justice, Rollo has a right to claim compensation for the loss of his fish. But then I should hope he won't insist upon it."

"Well, sir," said Rollo, "I don't care much about it now."

"You see, Henry," continued Rollo's father, "I haven't been talking about this all this time on account of the value of the fish, but to have you understand some of the principles you ought to regard, when any other's property is in your possession. So, now, you may all go."

"Well, uncle," said James, as the children rose from their seats, "haven't you got some great box that we can have for our cabinet?"

"Your cabinet?" asked his uncle.

"Yes, sir, we want to make a museum."

"Why, Rollo has got a cabinet. Jonas made him one."

"Yes, sir; but he wants his for himself, and we want one for our society."

"You may have mine, now," said Rollo; "I am not going to have one alone. I have concluded to let you have mine. Come."