
    Patrick Brennan v. John P. Haff.
    The defendant’s horse having been stolen, he offered a reward of fifty dollars for the detection of the thief. The plaintiff informed him that D. was the thief, and gave him some information tending to sustain this charge, and the defendant had D. arrested therefor.
    
      
      Seld¡ sufficient prima facie evidence to sustain a recovery for tlie amount of the' reward, without showing D.’s conviction on the charge.
    If D. had been acquitted, or released, or if the charge made against Mm was unfounded, it was incumbent on the defendant to show the fhct, to rebut the presumption arising from the proof of such arrest of D. at the instigation of the plaintiff.
    Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Seventh Dis-tritt Court. The defendant was the proprietor of the Elm Park Hotel. A horse belonging to him having been stolen from his barn, he caused the following advertisement for its recovery to be inserted in the New York Herald:
    “ $50 Reward. — Stolen, from the barn of Elm Park Hotel, o¡p the Bloomingdale Road, on the evening of October 22d, a bobtail gray mare, about fifteen hands high, together with harness and red blanket. Twenty-five dollars reward will be paid for her whereabouts, and fifty dollars will be paid for the detection of the thief. Ferry masters and livery stable keepers are requested to notice and give information. The above reward will be paid by
    “ JOHN P. Haff,
    “Proprietor of Elm Park Hotel.”
    This action was brought to recover $75, claimed for information given pursuant to this advertisement. It appeared that in consequence of the advertisement the plaintiff called upon the defendant, informed him where the horse, &c., was to be found, and told him that one Denman was the thief; that he saw him go down the Bloomingdale road with the horse. The defendant then said he should have the reward. His subsequent statement that he had got the horse, and had had Denman arrested, was also proved. It also appeared that he learned the whereabout of the horse from another source prior to the information derived from the plaintiff. Tie justice gave judgment for the plaintiff for $50, from which the defendant appealed.
    
      J. F. Malcolm, for the appellant.
    
      
      A. 0. Morris, for tbe respondent.
   Daly, J. —

Tbe judgment was right. Tbe advertisement was beaded, “ $50 Reward,” and tben, after giving notice tbat tbe mare, a description of wbicb was set forth, had been stolen, tbe advertisement specified tbat $25 reward would be paid “for her whereabout,” and $50 for tbe detection of tbe thief. Tbe justice would seem to have understood this as an offer of $25 for tbe discovery of the property, and $25 more for tbe detection of tbe thief; tbat is, $50 if'both ends were attained. He gave judgment for $50, instead of the $75 claimed by tbe plaintiff; and, upon the evidence tbe plaintiff was entitled to recover tbat sum. It was shown tbat tbe plaintiff called upon tbe defendant on tbe morning upon wbicb tbe advertisement appeared^ and told him where the horse was, and that be saw a person named Denman, whom be believed to be tbe thief, and who appears to have, been known to tbe defendant, going down tbe Bloomingdale road with tbe animal. Two days after, tbe defendant admitted tbat be bad got tbe horse, and tbat be bad bad Denman arrested, wbicb was sufficient prima facie to warrant tbe justice in concluding tbat tbe information furnished by the plaintiff bad led to tbe discovery of tbe property and tbe detection of tbe thief. Tbe plaintiff was not bound to show tbat Den-man was convicted. He proved that be bad been arrested at tbe instance of the defendant; tbat be was in custody upon tbe charge; and if Denman was innocent — if tbe charge against him was unfounded, and be bad been released or acquitted — it was incumbent on tbe defendant to show it, or to remove tbe presumption created by tbe evidence, tbat the plaintiff bad discovered or detected tbe thief. There was nothing to show any collusion between Denman and tbe plaintiff, or tbat be knew, when be saw Denman with tbe horse, tbat it bad been stolen, or tbat he was apprised of the fact, or bad any reason to suppose tbat a crime bad been committed, before be saw tbe advertisement. The judgment should be affirmed.  