y finder who returns him. Suppose a
person at the time of catching the animal did not know of the reward
but does know of it when returning the beast to his owner; can he
claim the reward? This question has somewhat puzzled the judges, but
the more recent opinion is that the catcher can claim the reward like
a person who knew at the time of stopping the pleasure of the runaway.
Of course, there is no question concerning these rewards when they are
known at the time of acting on them.

In one of the cases tried not long since, an old farmer offered a
reward of $15 to any one who would find the person who had stolen his
harness and also $100 to the man who would prosecute the thief. The
harness, in truth, was worth not even this small sum and the thief
still less. Yet he was caught and prosecuted, and then the prosecutor
and finder claimed the rewards. The farmer's excitement had cooled off
by this time and he was not so loud and liberal as he was at the time
of finding out his loss. He refused to pay, saying that he did not
really mean to offer these sums as rewards, and the court decided in
his favour, declaring that his offer of reward could not be regarded
strictly as one, but rather "as an explosion of wrath." In another
case a man's house was burning up and his wife was inside, and he
offered any one $5000 who would go in and bring her out--"dead or
alive." A brave fellow went in and rescued her. Then he claimed the
reward. Was the man who made the offer obliged to pay, and could he
not have escaped by insisting that this was simply "an explosion of
affection" and not strictly an offer or promise of reward? He tried to
hold on to his money, but the court held that this was an offer he
must pay. Possibly after the recovery of his wife his valuation of her
had changed somewhat from what it was while his house was burning up.

One or two more cases may be given. Some persons who prepared
"carbolic-smoke balls" offered to pay L100 to any person who
contracted influenza after having used one of the balls in the manner
clearly set forth and for a stated period. This offer was in the form
of a newspaper advertisement. A person bought one of them and followed
carefully all the directions about its use. The influenza, though, did
not disappear as advertised, so he sued to recover the offer; and,
having proved clearly that he had complied faithfully with the
directions and had not been cured, the court said that the owners m