Quote:
Originally Posted by MSD
"I was just holding it for a friend." You're still holding it and you're still in possession.
"I dropped that $50 bill and that guy picked it up." Your word against his and unless you've got some other evidence, he gets to keep it.
|
Alright, you posted two sides of the coin's argument. Thank you.
One more scenario:
Say I am in possession of, let's say, a drum set. It's a sweet piece of goodness, to keep it short. Now, I've got a friend who buys the same drum set, though years later. He prizes it highly, puts it on a pedestal, everything, nearly, save claim an insurane policy for it. Later in this hypothetical, we'll suppose that his kit gets stolen, and he is distraught. I invite the friend over months later to try and get him out of his depression, and he notices my drum set for the first time. He, too, says "it's friggin' sweet" and adores how much it reminds him of what he recently lost. So much so, in fact, that he now notices its the exact model and color scheme of his separate but stolen drumkit.
Hysterics ensue, and he thows out the accusation that *I* stole his drum set, even though this is just a case of coincidence and mistaken identity. He calls the cops, and explains "his version" of the account (that I stole his drum set and became his friend just to do so) when, in actuality, my true account of the story is that I have had the drum set at least a decade before he bought his; BUT, the problem is I don't really recall where I got my drums, if and/or I paid for them, nor do I hold documentation/receipts/pictures 5 years me standing before the drums, smiling. However, the friend does hold a receipt for the same model of the drums, and presents it to the authorities or judge as evidence that I stole his equipment.
Say this scenario is played out before digital tagging and unique identification markers on each separate equipment (in the 1970s, I guess) and everything goes wrong in my case, not a word of my story is believed.
Would my inherent property be granted to some naysayer in a court of law, given the above circumstances, (i.e. he, having documentation and an accusation, and me, having no backstory nor any records of my possession of my own drums) and absolutely not a leg of credibility to stand on but my word against his, could this happen at all? Where does the "9/10th" clause protect and/or harm me in this case?
Granted, it is farfetched, but not out of the realm of imagination turned reality.
Abridged version: Can any ol' snob come into my residence, spin around in a circle, point to one of my possessions, ask if I hold a receipt to it (my reply: no), and subsequently complain to the police that I "stole his" property, and would he stand to gain my stuff in my own failure to produce any documentation, while he only has his accusation?
It honestly reminds me of that film with Martin Lawrence and Danny DeVito [I don't know the name of it, (Oh, and that episode of "The Practice" where the sister got caught with crack in her hand, even though the brother was selling it)].