Having read judgements, again and again, I keep stumbling upon this construction which really irritates me, as I do not understand how people so well-educated can use the verb find in its wrong form.

Is it sufficient to found a conviction of murder?

Wouldn't it be better to say:

Is it sufficient to find a conviction of murder?

closed as off-topic by Hot Licks, JEL, Barmar, user140086, ab2 Jan 21 '16 at 10:36

  • This question does not appear to be about English language and usage within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    To found is a verb that means in this context to establish the bases for. – Graffito Jan 21 '16 at 0:29
  • 4
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it lacks sufficient context. – Hot Licks Jan 21 '16 at 0:34
  • 1
    What is "it"? Please provide complete context for (what I assume is) the quote. – JEL Jan 21 '16 at 0:45
  • 1
    EDIT YOUR QUESTION AND ADD A PARAGRAPH OR TWO OF CONTEXT, if you do not want to see the question closed. – Hot Licks Jan 21 '16 at 1:21
  • 2
    @Ana But what if the answer wasn't correct? More context is needed to avoid mistake. and I am sure you understand that. – haha Jan 21 '16 at 1:39

I think the confusion is the use of found as the past participle of find, and found in terms of

to set up or establish on a firm basis or for enduring existence


to provide a basis or ground for

Think of foundation, which also comes up in a legal context. Find in a legal context can specifically refer to a finding, which is

The result of the deliberations of a jury or a court.

In the law, these specific statements carry some additional burdens than they do in normal speech.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.