Armory vs. Delamirie, 1722, King's Bench
The Armory case decided where the law stood on 'finders keepers' or trover, which might sound a bit dull, until you look at the details.
Paul de Lamerie was in fact, a very wealthy retailing goldsmith, and the main proponent of English rococo silver (see the beautiful kettle of the second picture). His work was of the highest standards, his clients amongst the most noble in the land, and he was enormously successful during his own lifetime, having risen from a modest background. Details of his life are scant: born in the Netherlands, came to England with his parents (his father was a Huguenot soldier in William IIIrd's army) and the family took up residence in Berwick Street, Soho. Even as a young boy, Paul must have shown promise, as his father applied for £10 in charity from the Huguenot Church in Threadneedle Street to place him in an apprenticeship with goldsmith Pierre Platel. On gaining his freedom, he set up in his own business. Numerous examples of his roguery exist. They include: being constantly fined for having the work of 'foreigners', his fellow Frenchmen, submitted and hallmarked as his own at Goldsmith's Hall, cheating Customs officers, barring Goldsmiths' Halls powers to search commercial premises, and cheating little boys out of things they found up chimneys.
Yes, you've guessed it: Armory, the plaintiff, was a chimney-sweep or climbing boy, as they were known in Georgian London. The King's Bench court report records:
The plaintiff being a chimney sweeper's boy found a jewel and carried it to the defendant's shop (who was a goldsmith) to know what it was, and delivered it into the hands of the apprentice, who under pretence of weighing it, took out the stones, and calling to the master to let him know it came to three halfpence, the master offered the boy the money, who refused to take it, and insisted to have the thing again; whereupon the apprentice delivered him back the socket without the stones.
As to the value of the jewel several of the trade were examined to prove what a jewel of the finest water that would fit the socket would be worth; and the Chief Justice directed the jury, that unless the defendant did produce the jewel, and shew it not to be of the finest water, they should presume the strongest case against him, and make the value of the best jewels the measure of their damages: which they accordingly did.
Paul de Lamerie was ordered to pay the sweep compensation to the order of a 'diamond of the finest and first water' of a size to fit into the setting. One of the great mysteries of the case is who represented Armory. Climbing boys and girls were the children of the very poor, or parish foundlings, who were sold into the service of the chimney sweep, for a fee of around four pounds. Their life span was short, due to the carcinogenic nature of coal soot, and the fact that the fires were often still lit when the child went up the chimney. The fact that the child had shown enough initiative to make to De Lamerie's shop is impressive. Perhaps another customer took his part and made sure he had good advice? Sadly, these details are lost, but it is has been assumed in the recent research into legal history that this case represents the first example of pro bono work in Britain. There are no further records pertaining to the sweep, and he is lost to us. For now.
This short record established title on found goods that was maintained until the end of the 20C. It is also a vivid snapshot of Georgian London. Incidents such as these would have been the talk of the neighbourhood, the subject of endless gossip and that they are still remembered, even in dry legal terms illuminates a great deal about De Lamerie's working practices and shop set up. It's just a shame it doesn't tell us more about the child who triumphed over the most successful goldsmith in London.
