First report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the law relating to coroners and coroners' inquests, and into the practice in coroners' courts.

  • Great Britain. Committee on Coroners.
Date:
1909
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: First report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the law relating to coroners and coroners' inquests, and into the practice in coroners' courts. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    43/254 (page 37)
    12 February 1909.] | Continued. 773. If he is a county coroner it would be part of his ordinary duties covered by his salary ?—I am not able to give any information as to that; I do not know. 774, (Dr. Willcow.) In the case of a prosecution, who deals with it? The magistrate ?—If there is a prosecution for the concealment of treasure trove, the charge is made before a magistrate in the same way as a charge of murder sometimes follows on an inquest. 775. In that case that you mentioned, where the men got a year’s imprisonment, was that sentence given oy a magistrate P—No, it was given by a judge. 776. (Chairman.) They were committed for trial and found guilty on indictment for misdemeanour ?— Yes. 777. There is no summary conviction ?—There is no summary conviction ; it is still a serious offence. 778. You never thought of prosecuting those carters in the Kensington case ?—-The matter was considered, but it was not thought necessary to take any action. 779. How does the form of indictment run ?— According to the note in Reg. v. Thomas: “ An indict- * ment which charges that prisoner did unlawfully, “ wilfully, and knowingly conceal the finding of certain * treasure trove from the knowledge of the Queen is * sufficient, and it is not necessary to allege that the * concealment was fraudulent.” 780. In 1892 I think you say a further question arose about treasure trove?—The Act having been passed in 1887, coroners held no inquests, and we were some- what taken by surprise in 1892 when the coroner for Herefordshire proposed to hold an inquest on some treasure trove which had been found by two farmers ferreting for rabbits. He said, when he announced his intention of holding an inquest, that the lord of the manor had given notice of his claim, and that he assumed that it would be necessary for the lord of the manor to prove his title to the royalty, that considerable local interest had been awakened in the matter, and on all sides there was a strong feeling that a public inquiry should be held, in order that the whole of the circumstances surrounding the discovery might be made known to the public through the public press. The matter was considered by the Treasury and a good deal of correspondence took place between the Treasury Solicitor’s department and the coroner, and the opinion of the Law Officers (Sir Richard Webster and Sir Edward Clarke) was taken, and they advised as follows :— * No question of the Crown’s title can be raised or ** determined at the inquest held under the Coroners * Act. We think, however, that it would be as well * for the inquest to be held, but it should be confined *“ to the circumstances under which the plate was * found. Any finding upon title would not be binding “upon any person. The Crown should watch the * proceedings, but not take any part beyond indi- * cating that the treasure trove is claimed by the * Crown. It might be as well to endeavour to ascertain * the ground upon which the lord of the manor bases * his claim.’ The effect of that opinion was com- municated to the coroner, who proceeded to hold his inquest, and the jury found that the articles were treasure trove. The coroner then asked if anyone claimed the treasure against the Crown, and counsel for the lord of the manor stated that he claimed them, and intended to call evidence ; whereupon counsel for the Crown submitted that the coroner’s court had no juris- diction to determine the question of the Crown’s title, ‘but the coroner allowed evidence to be called, and an office copy of a grant of 17 James I., 1620, of all royalties, liberties, &c., but containing no express mention of treasure trove, was put forward. Counsel for the Crown declined to cross-examine on this evidence, and the case was put to the jury, who failed to agree on a verdict. The coroner then bound the jury over to attend the next assizes; and in December 1892, the matter came before Mr. Justice Day at the Hereford Assizes, when all the jury were in attendance except one, who was absent through illness. Under those circumstances Mr. Justice Day discharged the jury, and afterwards made certain remarks, which in effect approved the coroner’s action. 2120, 781. That is to say, Mr. Justice Day considered that the coroner was entitled to go into the question whether this admittedly treasure trove was the property of the Crown or the property of the lord of the manor ? —Yes, he, talking at large (as one may say) on the subject, told the coroner that he was quite right; it was a very convenient way of finding the question of title, was much better than having a Petition of Right (which was an awkward procedure), and encouraged the coroner to go on. Acting under the advice of the Law Officers (then Sir Charles Russell and Sir John Rigby), who advised that a suit should promptly be commenced on behalf of the Attorney-General against the coroner claiming the treasure on behalf of the Crown, a suit was instituted (the lord of the manor, Mr. Arkwright, being also made a defendant). The case came before Mr. Justice Stirling on a motion treasure in court, or that he might be restrained by injunction until the trial of the action, or further order, from delivering, parting, or in any manner disposing of any of the articles to any person or persons other than the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury. 782. I presume the coroner kept the treasure trove intending to hold a second inquest, as the first was abortive ?—He did, and you see he held another inquest notwithstanding the proceedings which had been taken. In the Chancery Division the case was argued by Sir John Rigby on behalf of the Crown, and his argument, set out in the report of the case of Attorney-General v. Moore (1893, 1 Ch., page 676), contains a statement of the law as to treasure trove. I am able to say, because I was present at the con- sultation, that it is not only argument, but that it was his considered opinion, based on what he had written with care. He took the line that the coroner ought not to inquire into any question of title, but that his func- tions were limited to inquiring of treasure that is found and who was suspected thereof, and Mr. Justice Stirling took that view, and held that a coroner’s court was not the court to decide questions of title, and the coroner ought not to inquire as to title. That is shortly the effect of the case which is reported at length. 783. That is perfectly consistent, is it not, with the general law as to inquests. <A finding by the coroner’s jury, for instance, that a certain person has committed a murder is not conclusive; the matter has to be inquired into in due course of law by a superior court of law P—Yes. 784. Will you tell us about the proceedings in the case afterwards ?—On the 17th December 1892, the coroner held another inquest, and the jury gave a verdict that that which was found was treasure trove, that the defendant Arkwright was the lord of the manor of Stoke, and that as such he was entitled to treasure trove. Notwithstanding this verdict, the defendant Arkwright subsequently withdrew his claim to the treasure, and consented to an order upon a summons taken out by the Treasury solicitor on the 19th February 1893, by which it was ordered that the coroner should deliver the treasure to the Lords of There is an example of the expenditure of a good deal of time and money simply owing to the action of the coroner in inquiring into title. 785. Inquiring into a matter that he had no jurisdiction to inquire into P—Yes. 786. (Str Malcolm Morris.) You say that in spite of the opinion of Mr. Justice Day ?—It was an obiter dictum; but it has been a stumbling block to many coroners, who have pointed to the conflicting opinions of two learned judges. 787. (Chairman.) One is authoritative, and the other is not P—Yes. 788. One is an obiter dictum, and the other is a binding decision P—Yes, 789. (Sir Malcolm Morris.) Do you happen to know who the coroner was who tried that case; was he a lawyer ?—I think he was a lawyer. I said that those two expressions of opinion weighed very much with coroners, and I know that they have expressed difficulties: to me as to how they were to deal with them. Some of D 3