12 s. ii. JULY is, i9i6.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
treasure, casually lost it, or purposely parted
with it in such a manner that it is evident he
intended to abandon the property altogether, and
did not purpose to resume it on another occasion,
as if he threw it on the ground, or other public
place, or in the sea, the first finder is entitled to
the property as against every one but the owner,
and the King's prerogative does not in this respect
obtain. So that it is the hiding, and not the
abandonment of the property that entitles the
King to it. It is the duty of every person who
finds any treasure to make it known to the
Coroners of the County. The punishment for
concealing it is fine and imprisonment." For
instance, in the case of Beg. v. Thomas and Willett
(1863, IX. Cox's 'Grim. Cas.,'376), the defendants
bought ancient gold ornaments, ploughed up in a
field near Hastings, as brass knowing it to be
gold for 5s. 6d. and sold it to a refiner for 5211.
The prisoners were tried on the inquisition of the Coroner at the assize for having " unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly " concealed the treasure- trove from the knowledge of the Queen. They were sentenced to two years' imprisonment, and, after serving one year in Lewes Gaol, they were released.
See also, Dalton on ' Sheriffs,' chap. 16, ' Treasure-Trove,' and chap. 7, p. 40, which says " Where the Lord of any Liberty hath by charter any franchise there the Sheriffs are not to seize them." In this connexion it is interesting to note that Gross, in describing the functions of the Coroner in his ' Select Cases from the Coroners' Rolls,' says (p. xxvi) :
" The Coroner, unlike the Sheriff, who was the appointed agent of the King, represented not only the King but also the people. He was answerable to the King and people. He belonged to the Community and owed his position to their suffrage."
On such reasoning it seems only proper that the Coroner, as the representative of the people
- \* well as of the King, should deal with and
investigate in open Court matters such as treasure which may belong to either King or subject rather than that such property should be appro- priated by some officer or agent of the Treasury, often a policeman, acting only hi the King's interest.
At an inquest on silver plate unearthed in manorial ground, at Leominster, and handed to the Coroner, the jury, being unable to agree in a verdict, were summoned to appear before the late Mr. Justice Day, at the Assize on Dec. 5, 1892. Justice Day in his charge to the jury, in supporting the Coroner, gave expression to the following significant dictum : " In cases of grant, the Crown cannot seize chattels because they are treasure-trove, and the Coroner is bound to inquire into the matter and deal with it." (See Att. Gen. v. Moore, 1893, 1 Ch., 676.)
APPENDIX K.
Treasure-trove hi the City of London, and hi the ancient Borough and Town of Southwark, belongs specifically by Royal grant to the Lord Mayor, Commonalty and Citizens of London. The fine copy of the Inspeximus Charter (the criminal of which is hi the City archives), of June 24, 15 Charles II. (1664), translated from the original in Latin, made under the direction of Sir Thomas Hardy in 1838, and preserved hi the
Guildhall Library, recites the City Charters from
the time of William the Conqueror. The three
charters granting treasure-trove are those of
Sept. 20, 6 James I. (1608), of Oct. 18, 14 Charles I.
(1638), and of April 23, 4 Edward VI. (1550).
Charles II. confirms the above charters of James I.
and Charles I. (at p. 159 of the copy of the Inspexi-
mus Charter of Charles II.) in the following
words : " We do give and grant to the Mayor,
Commonalty and Citizens and their successors,
treasure-trove hi the City of London, or the
Liberties thereof ; and also all Waifs and Estrays,
and goods and chattels of Felons and Fugitives
....in the City or the Liberties thereof."
Charles II., at p. 92, recites and confirms
Edward VI. Charter, as follows : " We have given
and granted to the Mayor and Commonalty and
Citizens of the City and their successors hi and
through all the Borough and Town of Southwark
... .all goods and chattels waived, estrays, and
also Treasure-trove hi the Town and precinct
aforesaid, and goods and chattels of all manner of
Traitors, Felons, Fugitives, Outlaws, condemned
persons, Convicts and Felons defamed. .. .and
deodands, and those denying the Law of our
Land, &c."
By " waifs " are to be understood stolen goods which are waived or thrown away by the thief in his flight from fear of being apprehended. Such goods became the property of the King or his grantee, unless the owner prosecuted promptly.
" Estrays " are stray cattle and swans, which, in return for the damage they may have done,, belong to the King or his grantee if unclaimed,, after public proclamation, within a year and a day.
The deodand, or gift to God, or " bane (Anglo- Saxon bana), i.e., the slayer, hi English, was the animal or inanimate thing causing death by mN- adventure. The value of the deodand, appraised by the Coroner's jury, became, up to the year 18-16 (when it was abolished) the property of the King- In Southwark it belonged by special grant to the City of London, but not in the C&Y-
Goods and chattels of felons (including felot-df- se), and of lands, also, hi the case of Outlaws, were formerly appraised before the City Coroner and committed to the custody of one of the sheriff-, to be accounted for by him at the next assize,, when, if convicted, the property became, by the two charters cited, forfeited to the City. Such forfeiture save hi the case of outlaws was abolished in 1870 (St. 33 and 34 Viet., cap. 23). It is still the duty of the Coroner (in the City the Recorder acts by custom) to make the entry of the judgment in" outlawry in criminal <-:ises > to gain possession for the Crown or grantee o outlaw's property in cases where he has left country and from whence he cannot be extradited.
Dalton on the ' Office of Sheriff,' 1670, cap. U on ' Forfeitures,' p. 73, also states that goods and chattels were forfeited even " For flying I felony, although not guilty of the fact.
The case of The Attorney General v. Trustees ol the British Museum (1903, 2 Ch. 598) illustrat the importance of the insertion of special woi descriptive of a franchise such as treasure-ti ina charter before .such ran be sm-o->sfully claim by a subject. The case in point was one in whi. ancient gold ornaments were unearthed on at Limavady hi the North- West of Ireland, gmmV tot Honourable the Irish Society, whirl. happens to be under the governance of
