Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T14:12:03.295Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Treasure Trove

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2015

Geoffrey DE C. Parmiter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and News
Information
Antiquity , Volume 42 , Issue 168 , December 1968 , pp. 307 - 309
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

[1] 3 Co. Inst. 132, 133. Blackstone’s definition (1 Bl. Com. (14th ed.) 295) might seem to imply that treasure trove extends to articles other than gold or silver, but the term treasure trove appears invariably as used only in relation to gold or silver articles.

[2] 3 Co. Inst. 132; Chitty’s Prerogatives of the Crown, 152, cited with approval by Stirling, J., in Attorney-General v. Moore, [1895] 1 Ch. 676, at p. 683Google Scholar, and by Farwell, J., in Attorney-General v. British Museum Trustees, [1904] 2 Ch. 598, at p. 608.Google Scholar

[3] 3 Co. Inst. 132; I Bl. Com. (14th ed.) 295.

[4] Brae., lib. 3, De Corona, c. 3, f. 118; 3 Co. Inst. 132; 1 Bl. Com. (14th ed.) 296; Armory v. Delamirie (1722)Google Scholar, 1 Stra. 505; 1 Sm. L. C. (nth ed.) 356. See the observations of Farwell, J., in Attorney-General v. British Museum Trustees, [1903] 2 Ch. 598, at p. 608Google Scholar: ‘If the owner, instead of hiding the 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, or 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 everyone 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 entitled the King to it.’

[5] Attorney-General v. British Museum Trustees, [1903] 2 Ch. 598, at p. 613.

[6] Attorney-General v. British Museum Trustees, [1903] 2 Ch. 598, at pp. 609, 610.

[7] Attorney-General v. British Museum Trustees, [1903] 2 Ch. 598, at p. 613.

[8] 3 Co. Inst. 133; R. v. Thomas and Willett (1863), Le. & Ca. 313; R. v. Toole (1867), 11 Cox C. C. 75. And see Home Office Circular No. 68/1955, section V.

[9] See Coroners Act, 1887, s. 36. The Coroners Rules, 1953, do not apply to inquisitions on treasure trove.

[10] See 4 Edw. I, stat. 2 (De officio coronatoris) (1276), which is declaratory of the common law although repealed by the Coroners Act, 1877; see s. 36 of the Act of 1877.

[11] See Attorney-General v. Moore, [1893] 1 Ch. 676; Attorney-General v. British Museum Trustees, [1903] 3 Ch. 598.

[12] Home Office Instruction 159308/14, dated 30th June 1925; Home Office Instruction 159308/47, dated 12th June 1931; Home Office Circular No. 68/1955.