From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the legal concept. For
the general concept of an accumulation of riches, see
Treasure. For the illustrated
children's book, see
A Treasure's Trove.
A treasure trove may broadly be defined as an
amount of gold, silver, gemstones, money, jewellery, or any
valuable collection found hidden underground or in places such as
cellars or attics, where the treasure seems old enough for it to be
presumed that the true owner is dead and the heirs undiscoverable.
However, both the legal definition of what constitutes a treasure
trove and its treatment under law varies considerably from country
to country, and from era to era.
The term is also often used metaphorically. Collections of articles
published as a book are often titled Treasure Trove, as in
A Treasure Trove of Science. This was especially
fashionable for titles of children's books in the early-
and mid-20th century.
Terminology
Treasure trove, sometimes rendered
treasure-trove, literally means "treasure that has been
found". The English term treasure trove
was derived from tresor trové, the Anglo-French[1]
equivalent of the Latin legal
term thesaurus inventus. In 15th-century English the
Anglo-French term was translated as "treasure found", but from the
16th century it began appearing in its modern form with the French
word trové anglicized as trovey,
trouve or trove.[2]
The term treasure trove or trove is often used
metaphorically to mean a
"valuable find", and hence a source of treasure, or a reserve or
repository of valuable things.[3]
History
Roman law
In Roman law treasure
trove was called thesaurus ("treasure" in Latin), and defined by the Roman jurist Paulus as "vetus
quædam depositio pecuniæ, cujus non extat memoria, ut jam dominum
non habeat"[4] (an
ancient deposit of money, of which no memory exists, so that it has
no present owner).[5]
R.W. Lee, in his book The Elements of Roman Law (4th ed.,
1956), commented that this definition was "not quite satisfactory"
as treasure was not confined to money, nor was there any
abandonment of ownership.[5]
Under the emperors, if treasure was found on a
person's own land or on sacred or religious land, the finder was
entitled to keep it. However, if the treasure was found
fortuitously, and not by deliberate search, on another person's
land, half went to the finder and half to the owner of the land,
who might be the emperor, the fiscus (public treasury), the city, or some
other proprietor.[6]
According to Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), as the feudal system spread over
Europe and the prince was looked on as the ultimate owner of all
lands, his right to the treasure trove became jus commune et
quasi gentium (a common and quasi-international right) in
England, Germany, France, Spain and Denmark.[7
]
English
common law
It has been said that the concept of treasure trove in English law dates back
to the time of Edward the Confessor (c. 1003/1004 – 1066).[8] Under
the common law,
treasure trove was defined as gold or silver in any form, whether
coin, plate (gold or silver vessels or utensils)[9] or
bullion (a lump of gold or silver),[10][11] which
had been hidden and rediscovered, and which no person could prove
he or she owned. If the person who had hidden the treasure was
known or discovered later, it belonged to him or her[12][13]
or persons claiming through him or her such as descendants. To be
treasure trove, an object had to be substantially – that is, more
than 50% – gold or silver.[14]
A ceremonial helmet from
Sutton Hoo recovered in 1939. The Sutton Hoo
find was not treasure trove – as it was a
ship burial, there had been no intention to
recover the objects later.
Treasure trove had to be hidden with animus revocandi,
that is, an intention to recover it later. If an object was simply
lost or abandoned (for instance, scattered on the surface of the
earth or in the sea), it either belonged to the first person who
found it[12][15] or
the landowner according to the law of finders,
that is, legal principles concerning the finding of objects. For
this reason, the objects found in 1939 at Sutton Hoo were determined not to be
treasure trove – as the objects were part of a ship burial, there had
been no intention to recover the buried objects subsequently.[16] The Crown had a prerogative
right to treasure trove, and if the circumstances under which
an object was found raised a prima facie presumption that it had been hidden, it
belonged to the Crown unless someone else could show a better title to
it.[17] The
Crown could grant its right to treasure trove to any person in the
form of a franchise.[12][13][18]
It was the duty of the finder, and indeed of anyone who had
acquired knowledge of the matter, to report the finding of a
potential treasure trove to the coroner of the district. Concealing a find was
a misdemeanour[19][20]
punishable with fine and imprisonment.[12][21] The
coroner was required to hold an inquest with a jury to determine who were the finders or the
persons suspected to be the finders, "and that may be well
perceived where one liveth riotously and have done so of long
time".[13][22] Where
there had been an apparent concealment of treasure trove the
coroner's jury could investigate the title of the treasure to
discover if it had been concealed from the supposed owner, but any
such finding was not conclusive[23] as
the coroner generally had no jurisdiction to inquire into questions
of title to the treasure between the Crown and any other claimant.
If a person wished to assert title to the treasure, he or she had
to bring separate court proceedings.[20][24]
In the early 20th century, it became the practice of the Lords
Commissioners of the Treasury to pay those finders who fully
and promptly reported discoveries of treasure troves and handed
them over to the proper authorities the full antiquarian value of
objects which had been retained for national or other institutions
such as museums. Objects not retained were returned to the
finders.[13][25]
Scottish
common law
Under the common law of
Scotland, the law of treasure trove was and still is a
specialised application of the general rule governing bona vacantia
("vacant goods") – that is, objects that are lost, forgotten or
abandoned. The rule is quod nullius esfit domini regis:
"that which belongs to nobody becomes our Lord the King's [or
Queen's]". The Crown in Scotland has a prerogative right to
treasure trove for it is one of the regalia minora ("minor
things of the King"), that is, property rights which the Crown may
exercise as it pleases and which it may alienate (transfer to another
party). As the Scottish law of treasure trove on the matter has not
changed, it is discussed in the "Present-day legal
definitions" section below, under the subheading "Scotland".
United States
law
Many states in the US enacted statutes that received English
common law into their legal systems. For example, in 1863 the
legislature of Idaho enacted a
statute that made "the common law of England ... the rule of
decision in all courts" of the state. However, English common law
principles of treasure trove were not applied in the US. Instead,
courts applied rules relating to the finding of lost and ownerless
items. The treasure trove rule was first given serious
consideration by the Oregon Supreme Court in 1904 in a
case involving boys who had discovered thousands of dollars in gold coins hidden in
metal cans while cleaning out a henhouse. The Court wrongly
believed that the rule operated in the same way as early rules that
awarded possession – and, effectively, legal title as well – to
innocent finders of items that had been mislaid and the owners of
which were unknown. By awarding the coins to the boys, the Court
implied that finders were entitled to buried valuables, and that
any claims by landowners should be disregarded.[26]
In subsequent years the legal position became unclear as a
series of English and American cases decided that landowners were
entitled to buried valuables. The Maine Supreme Judicial
Court reconsidered the rule in 1908. The case before it
involved three workers who had found coins while digging on their
employer's land. The Court decided along the lines of the 1904
Idaho case and awarded the coins to the finders. For the next 30
years, the courts of a number of states, including Georgia, Indiana, Iowa,
Ohio and Wisconsin, applied this modified "treasure
trove" rule, most recently in 1948. Since that time, however, the
rule has fallen out of favour. Modern legal texts regard it as "a
recognized, if not controlling, rule of decision", but one
commentator has called it "a minority rule of dubious heritage that
was misunderstood and misapplied in a few states between 1904 and
1948".[26]
Present-day legal
definitions
United
Kingdom
England, Northern
Ireland and Wales
Throughout the ages, farmers, archaeologists and amateur treasure
hunters have unearthed important treasures of immense
historical, scientific and financial value. However, the strictness
of the common law rules meant that such items were sometimes not
treasure trove. The items risked being sold abroad, or were only
saved for the nation by being purchased at a high price. Mention
has already been made of the objects comprising the Sutton Hoo ship
burial, which were not treasure trove as they had been interred
without any intention to retrieve them. The objects were later
presented to the nation by their owner, Edith May Pretty, in a 1942
bequest. In March 1973, a hoard
of about 7,811 Roman coins was found buried in a field
at Coleby in Lincolnshire. It was
made up of antoniniani believed to have been
minted between 253 and 281 A.D. The Court of Appeal of
England and Wales held in the 1981 case of Attorney-General
of the Duchy of Lancaster v. G.E. Overton (Farms) Ltd. that
the hoard was not treasure trove as the coins did not have a
substantial silver content. Thus, it belonged to the owner of the
field and could not be retained by the British Museum.[27]
To remedy the faults of the old treasure trove regime, the Treasure Act
1996[28]
introduced a new scheme which came into effect on 24 September
1997.[29] Any
treasure found on and after that date regardless of the
circumstances in which it was deposited, even if it was lost or
left with no intention of recovery, belongs to the Crown, subject
to any prior interests or rights held by any franchisee of the
Crown.[30] The
Secretary
of State for Culture, Media and Sport may direct that any such
treasure be transferred or disposed of,[31] or
that the Crown's title in it be disclaimed.[32][33]
The Act uses the term treasure instead of treasure
trove; the latter term is now confined to objects found before
the Act came into force. Objects falling within the following
definition are "treasure" under the Act:[33][34]
- If the object is not a coin,[35] it
must be at least 300 years old[36] and
at least 10%[37]
precious metal (that is, gold or silver)[38] by
weight.
- If the object is a coin, it must either be:
- one of at least two coins in the same find[39] which
are at least 300 years old at that time and are at least 10%
precious metal by weight; or
- one of at least ten coins in the same find which are at least
300 years old at that time.
- Any object at least 200 years old when found which belongs to a
class of objects of outstanding historical, archaeological or
cultural importance that has been designated as treasure by the
Secretary of State.[40] As of
2006, the following classes of objects had been so designated:[41]
- Any object, other than a coin, any part of which is base metal
(that is, not gold or silver),[42] which
when found is one of at least two base metal objects in the same
find which are of prehistoric date.[43]
- Any object, other than a coin, which is of prehistoric date,
and any part of which is gold or silver.
- Any object which would have been treasure trove if found before
24 September 1997.
- Any object which, when found, is part of the same find as:
- an object within head (1), (2), (3) or (4) above found at the
same time or earlier; or
- an object found earlier which would be within head (1), (2) or
(3) above if it had been found at the same time.
Treasure does not include unworked natural objects, or minerals
extracted from a natural deposit, or objects that have been
designated not to be treasure[44] by
the Secretary of State.[45]
Objects falling within the definition of wreck[46] are
also not treasure.[33][47]
Coroners continue to have jurisdiction to inquire into any
treasure found in their districts, and into who are or are
suspected to be its finders.[48]
Anyone finding an object he or she believes or has reasonable
grounds to believe is treasure must notify the coroner for the
district in which the object is found within 14 days starting from
the day after the find or, if later, the day on which the finder
first believes or has reason to believe the object is treasure.[49] Not
doing so is an offence.[50]
Inquests are held without a jury unless the coroner decides
otherwise.[51] The
coroner must notify the British Museum if his or her district is in
England, the Department
of the Environment if it is in Northern Ireland, or the National Museum Wales if it is in
Wales.[52] The
coroner must also take reasonable steps to notify any person who
appears may have found the treasure; any person who, at the time it
was found, occupied land which it appears may be where the treasure
was found;[53] and
any other interested persons, including persons involved in the
find or having an interest in the land where the treasure was found
at that time or since.[54]
However, coroners still have no power to make any legal
determination as to whether the finder, landowner or occupier of
the land has title to the treasure. The courts have to resolve that
issue, and may also review coroners' decisions in relation to
treasure.[33][55]
When treasure has vested in the Crown and is to be transferred
to a museum, the Secretary of State is required to determine
whether a reward should be paid by the museum before the
transfer[56] to
the finder or any other person involved in the finding of the
treasure, the occupier of the land at the time of the find, or any
person who had an interest in the land at the time of the find or
has had such an interest at any time since then.[57] If
the Secretary of State determines that a reward should be paid, he
or she must also determine the market value of the treasure
(assisted by the Treasure Valuation Committee),[58] the
amount of the reward (which cannot exceed the market value), to
whom the reward should be paid and, if more than one person should
be paid, how much each person should receive.[33][59]
In England and Wales, finders of objects that are not treasure
or treasure trove are encouraged to voluntarily report them under
the Portable Antiquities Scheme
to finds liaison officers at county councils and local museums. Under
the scheme, which started in September 1997, the officers examine
finds and provide finders with information on them. They also
record the finds, their functions, dates, materials and locations,
and place this information into a database which can be analysed.
The information on the findspots may be used to organize further
research on the areas.[60]
Non-treasure finds remain the property of their finders or
landowners, who are free to dispose of them as they wish.[61]
On 5 July 2009 the largest single Anglo-Saxon hoard as of that date,
consisting of over 1,500 gold and precious metal pieces, helmets and sword
decorations tentatively dated to around 600–800 A.D., was
discovered by Terry Herbert in Staffordshire, England. Herbert reported the find to his local
Portable Antiquities Scheme officer, and on 24 September 2009 it
was declared to be treasure by the South Staffordshire coroner.[62]
Scotland
The Treasure Act 1996 does not apply in Scotland.[63]
Treasure trove in Scotland is dealt with under the common law of Scotland. The
general rule that governs bona vacantia ("vacant goods") –
that is, objects that are lost, forgotten or abandoned – is
quod nullius esfit domini regis ("that which belongs to
nobody becomes our Lord the King's [or Queen's]"),[64][65] and
the law of treasure trove is a specialized application of that
rule.[66] As in
England, the Crown in Scotland has a prerogative right to treasure
trove[67] for
it is one of the regalia minora ("minor
things of the King"),[68] that
is, property rights which the Crown may exercise as it pleases and
which it may alienate (transfer to another
party).[69]
Cliffs of
St. Ninian's Isle, photographed on 24
May 2006. The St. Ninian's Isle treasure, which is believed to date
to about 800 A.D., was found on this island.
To qualify as treasure trove, an object must be precious, it
must be hidden, and there must be no proof of its property or
reasonable presumption of its former ownership. Unlike under
English common law, treasure is not restricted to only gold and
silver objects.[70] In
1888 a prehistoric jet necklace and some other articles
found in Forfarshire were claimed by the authorities
though they were neither gold nor silver. A compromise was
eventually reached, and the find was deposited in the National Museum of
Scotland.[7
] In July 1958, a porpoise bone was found together with 28 other
objects of silver alloy (12 brooches, seven bowls, a hanging bowl and other
small metal work) underneath a stone slab marked with a cross on
the floor of St. Ninian's Church on St. Ninian's Isle in the Shetlands. The objects were
dated to about 800 A.D. A dispute having arisen over ownership of
the objects between the Crown on the one hand, and the finder (the
University of Aberdeen, which
had carried out the archaeological excavation) and the landowner on
the other, in Lord Advocate v. University of Aberdeen
(1963) the Court of Session held that the bone
should be regarded as treasure trove together with the silver
objects.[71]
Further, the requirement that an object must be "hidden" means no
more than that it must be concealed; it refers to the condition in
which the object was found and does not refer back to the intention
which the owner of the object may have had in hiding it.[72]
Finally, the requirement that there must be no reasonable
presumption of former ownership means that it must not be possible
to trace the ownership of the object to a person or family
currently existing.[73] Even
if an object does not qualify as treasure trove, it may be claimed
by the Crown as bona vacantia.[74]
The Queen's and Lord
Treasurer's Remembrancer (QLTR), an office held by the Crown Agent
who is the senior officer of the Crown Office in
Scotland, is responsible for claiming bona vacantia on
behalf of the Crown in Scotland.[64]
Finders of items are required to report such finds to the Crown
Office or to the Treasure Trove Unit (TTU) at the National Museums
of Scotland in Edinburgh. Each find is assessed by the Scottish
Archaeological Finds Allocation Panel, which decides if the find is
of national importance. If it is, the matter is referred by the TTU
to the QLTR department at the Crown Office, which will inform the
finder that it has accepted the Panel's recommendation to claim the
objects in the find as treasure trove or bona
vacantia.[75]
The Panel also recommends to the QLTR a reward for the find
based on its current market value where appropriate, and the most
appropriate museum in Scotland to allocate it to. The TTU then
contacts all museums which have bid for finds to advise them of the
Panel's recommendations. The museums have 14 days in which to
accept or reject the proposed allocation and reward for the find.
If the QLTR accepts the Panel's recommendations, it will notify the
finder of the amount of any reward being paid and the museum that
the find has been allocated to. The QLTR also asks the museum to
pay the finder's reward.[75]
While a treasury order of 1886 made provision for the
preservation of suitable objects in various national museums and
payment of rewards to their finders,[7
] the Crown is under no legal obligation to offer
any rewards for treasure trove objects it has claimed. However, it
usually does so, using the objects' market price as a guide. A
reward may be withheld or reduced if the finder has inappropriately
handled an object, for instance, damaged it by cleaning it or
applying waxes and varnishes to it.[76]
Finders may elect to waive their rewards. Rewards are not paid for
finds occurring during organized fieldwork.[75]
United
States
The law of treasure trove in the United States varies from state
to state, but certain general conclusions may be drawn. To be
treasure trove, an object must be of gold or silver.[77] Paper money is also deemed to
be treasure trove since it represents gold or silver.[78] On
the same reasoning, it might be imagined that coins and tokens in
metals other than gold or silver are also included, but this has
yet to be clearly established.[79] The
object must be concealed for long enough so it is unlikely that the
true owner will reappear to claim it.[80] The
consensus appears to be that the object must be at least a few
decades old.[81][82]
A majority of state courts, including those of Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa,
Maine, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Oregon
and Wisconsin, have
ruled that the finder of treasure trove is entitled to it. The
theory is that the English monarch's claim to treasure trove was
based on a statutory enactment which replaced the finder's original
right. When this statute was not re-enacted in the United States
after its independence,
the right to treasure trove reverted to the finder.[83]
In Idaho[84] and
Tennessee[85]
courts have decided that treasure trove belongs to the owner of the
place where it was found, the rationale being to avoid rewarding trespassers. In one Pennsylvania
case,[86] a
lower court ruled that the common law did not vest treasure trove
in the finder but in the sovereign, and awarded a find of US$92,800 cash to the state.
However, this judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania on the basis that it had not yet been decided if
the law of treasure trove was part of Pennsylvania law.[87] The
Supreme Court deliberately refrained from deciding the issue.[88]
Finds of money and lost property are dealt with by other states
through legislation. These statutes usually require finders to
report their finds to the police and transfer to their custody the
objects. The police then advertise the finds to try and locate
their true owner. If the objects remain unclaimed for a specified
period of time, title in them vests in the finders.[89] New Jersey vests buried
or hidden property in the landowner,[90] Indiana in the county,[91] Vermont in the township,[92] and
Maine in the township and the
finder equally.[93][94] In Louisiana, French codes have
been followed, so half of a found object goes to the finder and the
other half to the landowner.[7
] The position in Puerto Rico, the laws of which are based on
civil law, is similar.[95]
Finders who are trespassers generally lose all their rights to
finds,[96]
unless the trespass is regarded as "technical or trivial".[97][98]
Where the finder is an employee, most cases hold that the find
should be awarded to the employer if it has a heightened legal
obligation to take care of its customers' property, otherwise it
should go to the employee.[99] A
find occurring in a bank is generally awarded to the bank as the
owner is likely to have been a bank customer and the bank has a fiduciary duty to try to reunite lost
property with their owners.[100] For
similar reasons, common carriers are preferred to
passengers[101] and
hotels to guests (but only where finds occur in guest rooms, not
common areas).[102][103] The
view has been taken that such a rule is suitable for recently
misplaced objects as it provides the best chance for them to be
reunited with their owners. However, it effectively delivers title
of old artifacts to landowners, since the older an object is, the
less likely it is that the original depositor will return to claim
it. The rule is therefore of little or no relevance to objects of
archaeological value.[26]
Due to the potential for a conflict of interest, police
officers[104] and
other persons working in law enforcement occupations,[105] and
armed forces[106] are
not entitled to finds in some states.[107]
By the Archaeological Resources Protection Act 1979,[108]
finds more than a hundred years old on government land belong to
the government. There is analogous state legislation. Special rules
also apply to grave
goods from Indian burials discovered on Federal and tribal
lands under the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act[109]
enacted on 16 November 1990.[110]
See also
Notes
- ^
That is, the dialect of French that developed in England
following the decline of the Anglo-Norman language.
- ^
"treasure-trove", OED
Online (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1989, http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50256952, retrieved 10 April
2008
.
- ^
"trove", OED
Online (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1989, http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50258855, retrieved 11 April
2008
. See, for
example, the following news articles: Rebecca Morelle (16 May 2007), Antarctic 'treasure trove'
found, BBC
News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6661987.stm
("An
extraordinarily diverse array of marine life has been discovered in
the deep, dark waters around Antarctica."); Helen Briggs (11 March 2008), Cosmic 'treasure trove'
revealed, BBC
News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7288463.stm
("A Nasa space
probe measuring the oldest light in the Universe has found that
cosmic neutrinos made up 10% of matter shortly after the Big Bang.
... Scientists say it is collecting a 'treasure trove' of
information about the Universe's age, make-up and fate."); "The Titanic historical
treasure trove discovered in a shoe box after death of last living
survivor", Daily
Mail, 28 March 2008, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=547450&in_page_id=1770
("The moving
story of one of the last survivors of the Titanic can be revealed
for the first time after touching letters and documents were
discovered after her death.").
- ^
Digest, 41. I. 31, 1: see
Justinian I; Thomas
Collett Sandars, transl. & annot. (1859), The Institutes of
Justinian (2nd ed.), London: John W. Parker and Son,
p. 190, http://books.google.com/books?id=7LkLAAAAYAAJ
.
- ^ a
b
R.W. Lee (1956 (2007
printing)), The Elements of Roman Law: With a Translation of
the Institutes of Justinian (4th ed.), London: Sweet &
Maxwell, p. 139 (§211: "Thesaurus (treasure)"), ISBN
978-0-421-01780-1 (pbk.)
.
- ^
Institutes of Justinian, bk.
II, tit. i, para. 39: see Sandars, Institutes of
Justinian, p. 190; Lee, Elements of Roman Law, pp.
139, 145.
- ^
a
b
c
d Hugh Chisholm, ed.
(1910–1911), The Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.),
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
, 29 vols.
- ^
Lord
Denning M.R. in Attorney-General of the
Duchy of Lancaster v. G.E. Overton (Farms) Ltd. [1982] Ch. 277
at p. 285, C.A.
- ^
"plate, n.",
OED Online, Oxford: Oxford University Press, March
2008, http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50181027, retrieved 9 April
2008
.
- ^
"bullion2",
OED Online (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1989, http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50029165, retrieved 9 April
2008
.
- ^
In Attorney-General of the Duchy of Lancaster v. G.E. Overton
(Farms) Ltd., p. 288, Lord Denning said: "'Coin' is a coin of
gold or silver, 'plate' is something manufactured of it; 'bullion'
is a lump of it. Anything which is not a gold or silver object is
not treasure trove."
- ^ a
b
c
d
Edward Coke (1648),
The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England:
Concerning High Treason, and other Pleas of the Crown, and
Criminall Causes, London: M. Flesher, for W. Lee, & D.
Pakeman, pp. 132–133
.
- ^ a
b
c
d
Lord Simonds, gen.
ed. (1954), Halsbury's Laws of
England, 7 (3rd ed.), London:
Butterworths & Co., p. 540
, paras.
1161–1163.
- ^
Attorney-General of the Duchy of Lancaster v. G.E. Overton
(Farms) Ltd. at pp. 291–292.
- ^
Henry de
Bracton; Samuel E. Thorne (transl.) (1968–1977), Bracton on
the Laws and Customs of England, Cambridge, Mass.; London: Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press in association with the Selden
Society
, book 3, ch. 3,
folio 118; Armory v. Delamirie (1722) 1 Stra.
505.
- ^
Rupert
[Leo Scott] Bruce-Mitford (1975), The Sutton Hoo
Ship-burial: Vol. 1, Excavations, Background, the Ship, Dating and
Inventory, London: British Museum Publications,
pp. 718–731, ISBN
[[Special:BookSources/9780714113340, 9780714113319|9780714113340,
9780714113319]]
.
- ^
Attorney-General v. Moore [1893] 1 Ch. 676 at 683;
Attorney-General v. Trustees of the British Museum [1903]
2 Ch. 598.
- ^
John Rastell (1624),
Les Termes de la Ley: Or, Certaine Difficult and Obscure Words
and Termes of the Common Lawes of this Realme Expounded. [By John
Rastell.] Now newly imprinted, and much inlarged and
augmented, London: Company
of Stationers, p. 565, OCLC 222436919
; Joseph
Chitty the Younger (1820), A Treatise on the Law of the
Prerogatives of the Crown; and the Relative Duties and Rights of
the Subject, London: J. Butterworth & Son, p. 152, OCLC 66375255
, cited with
approval in Attorney-General v. Moore, p. 683, and
Attorney-General v. Trustees of British Museum, p.
608.
- ^
R. v. Toole (1867) 11 Cox. C.C. 75; R. v. Thomas &
Willett (1863) Le. & Ca. 313, 12 W.R. 108.
- ^ a
b
Lord Simonds, gen.
ed. (1954), Halsbury's Laws of
England, 8 (3rd ed.), London:
Butterworths & Co., pp. 543–544
, paras.
1039–1040.
- ^
R. v. Thomas & Willett.
- ^
De Officio Coronatoris (Office of Coroner Act) 1276 (4 Edw. I, c. 2), which was declaratory of
the common law. This statute was repealed by the Coroners Act 1887
(50 & 51 Vict., c. 71), s. 45,
Sch. 3, but the coroner's jurisdiction as regards treasure trove was
preserved by ss. 36 and 45(5) of the same Act. See also
Bracton, book 3, ch. 6, fol. 122; John Britton;
Francis Morgan Nichols, ed. (1865), Britton: The French Text
Carefully Revised, with an English Translation, Introduction and
Notes, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 8,
18, 66, OCLC 25061529
; Michael Dalton
(1670), Officium Vicecomitum: The Office and Authority of
Sherifs: Gathered out of the Statutes ... to which is Added an
Appendix ... containing a Collection of the Statutes Touching
Sheriffs made since Mr. Dalton's Writing ... With a New and Copious
Table, wherein the Defects ... of the Old Table are Supplyed,
[etc.], London: Printed by John Streater, James Flesher, and Henry
Twyford, assigns of Richard Atkins and Edward Atkins, and are to be
sold by George Sawbridge, [etc.], p. 376, OCLC 12414543
.
- ^
Edward
Umfreville (1761), Lex Coronatoria: Or the Office and Duty of
Coroners, [etc.], London: [s.n.], p. 536, OCLC 79529094
, 2 vols.;
Attorney-General v. Moore, p. 683; Attorney-General of
the Duchy of Lancaster v. G.E. Overton (Farms) Ltd., p.
287.
- ^
Attorney-General v. Moore; Attorney-General v.
Trustees of British Museum.
- ^
Home Office
Instruction 159308/14 dated 30 June 1925; Home Office Instruction
159308/47 dated 12 June 1931.
- ^ a
b
c
Richard B. Cunningham (7
February 2000), "The slow death of treasure
trove", Archaeology (New York, N.Y.: Archaeological
Institute of America), ISSN 0003-8113, http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/trove/, retrieved 18 January
2008
.
- ^
For comments on difficulties caused by the law relating to treasure
trove, see Roger
Bland (1996), "Treasure Trove and the Case for Reform", Art,
Antiquity and Law (Leicester: Institute of Art and Law): 11,
ISSN 1362-2331
.
- ^
Treasure Act (1996 c. 24).
See also the (PDF) Treasure Act 1996 Code of
Practice (2nd Revision) England and Wales, London: Department for
Culture, Media and Sport, 19 March 2007, archived from the original on 3 August
2007, http://web.archive.org/web/20070803211656/http://www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/85462661-3E18-470E-A889-20F892B87A26/0/TreasureAct1996CodeofPractice2ndRevision.pdf
.
- ^
Treasure Act 1996 (Commencement No. 2) Order 1997 S.I. 1997/1977),
art. 2.
- ^
Treasure Act, ss. 4(1), 4(4).
- ^
Treasure Act, s. 6(2).
- ^
Treasure Act, s. 6(3).
- ^ a
b
c
d
e
Lord Mackay of
Clashfern, ed. (2006 Reissue), Halsbury's Laws of
England, 9(2) (4th ed.), London: LexisNexis Butterworths,
pp. 623–629
, paras.
1077–1100.
- ^
Treasure Act, s. 1(1).
- ^
"Coin" includes any metal token which was, or can reasonably be
assumed to have been, used or intended for use as or instead of
money: Treasure Act, ss. 3(1), 3(3).
- ^
An object which can reasonably be taken to be at least a particular
age is to be presumed to have been at least that age, unless shown
not to be: Treasure Act, ss. 3(1), 3(6).
- ^
The figure of 10% was chosen because if an alloy has more than 10% gold or silver, it shows
that one of those precious metals was deliberately added to the
alloy. It also excludes objects which are merely plated with gold or silver: House of Commons
Official Report SC F (Treasure Bill), 17 April 1996, cols. 10 and
11.
- ^
Treasure Act, ss. 3(1), 3(3).
- ^
An object is part of the same find as another object if (1) they
are found together; (2) the other object was found earlier in the
same place where they had been left together; or (3) the other
object was found earlier in a different place, but they had been
left together and had become separated before being found: Treasure
Act, ss. 3(1), 3(4).
- ^
Treasure Act, s. 2(1).
- ^
Treasure (Designation) Order
2002 (S.I. 2002/2666), art. 3.
- ^
Treasure (Designation) Order 2002, art. 2.
- ^
An object is of prehistoric date if it dates from the Iron Age or any earlier
period: Treasure (Designation) Order 2002, art. 2.
- ^
Under the Treasure Act, s. 2(2).
- ^
Treasure Act, s. 1(2). As at 2006, no designation had been
made.
- ^
The term "wreck" includes flotsam (floating debris from a shipwreck), jetsam (goods
thrown overboard from a ship in distress to lighten its load),
lagan (goods found or left on the sea floor) and derelict
(abandoned goods) found in or on the shores of the sea or any tidal
water: Merchant Shipping Act 1995, s. 255(1), made applicable by
the Treasure Act, ss. 3(1), 3(7).
- ^
Treasure Act, ss. 3(1), 3(7).
- ^
Coroners Act 1988 (1998 c. 13), s. 30.
- ^
Treasure Act, ss. 8(1), 8(2).
- ^
Treasure Act, s. 8(3).
- ^
Treasure Act, s. 7(4).
- ^
Treasure Act, ss. 9(2), 13(b).
- ^
Treasure Act, s. 9(3).
- ^
Treasure Act, ss. 9(5), 9(7).
- ^
Under the Coroners Act, s. 13, or by way of judicial
review.
- ^
Treasure Act, ss. 10(1), 10(2).
- ^
Treasure Act, s. 10(5).
- ^
Treasure finds,
Department for
Culture, Media and Sport, archived from the original on 7 June
2007, http://web.archive.org/web/20070607003532/http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/Cultural_property/the_treasure_act/treasure_finds.htm, retrieved 12 April
2008
.
- ^
Treasure Act, s. 10(3).
- ^
"The Scheme's history",
Portable Antiquities
Scheme, Department for
Culture, Media and Sport, 2006, archived from the original on 11 May
2008, http://web.archive.org/web/20080511115201/http://www.finds.org.uk/background/history.php, retrieved 14 April
2008
.
- ^
"Frequently asked questions
about the Scheme", Portable Antiquities
Scheme, Department for
Culture, Media and Sport, 2006, archived from the original on 1 May
2008, http://web.archive.org/web/20080501085407/http://www.finds.org.uk/involved/faq.php, retrieved 14 April
2008
.
- ^
Maev Kennedy
(24 September 2009), "Largest ever hoard of
Anglo-Saxon gold found in Staffordshire: First pieces of gold were
found in a farm field by an amateur metal detector who lives alone
on disability benefit", The Guardian,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/24/anglo-saxon-treasure-hoard-gold-staffordshire-metal-detector
; "Anglo-Saxon gold: largest
ever hoard officially declared treasure", The Daily
Telegraph, 24 September 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6225975/Anglo-Saxon-gold-largest-ever-hoard-officially-declared-treasure.html
.
- ^
Treasure Act, s. 15(3).
- ^ a
b
"The legal position",
Treasure Trove [Scotland], Crown Office and
Procurator Fiscal Service, archived from the original on 27 May
2007, http://web.archive.org/web/20070527032301/http://www.treasuretrovescotland.co.uk/html/legal.asp, retrieved 13 April
2008
.
- ^
Lord Patrick in Lord Advocate v. University
of Aberdeen 1963 S.C. 533 at p. 554, Inner House, Court of
Session, citing Sands v. Bell & Balfour (22 May
1810), F.C.; Lord Hunter in Lord
Advocate v. University of Aberdeen, p. 549, Outer House, Court of
Session, citing an earlier edition of George Joseph
Bell; William Guthrie (1989), Principles of the Law of
Scotland (10th, rev. and enl. ed.), Edinburgh; London: Law
Society of Scotland; Butterworths, ISBN
9780406179036
, s. 1291(3).
- ^
Lord Mackintosh in Lord Advocate v. University of
Aberdeen, p. 561, Outer House, citing an earlier edition of
John Erskine of Carnock; James
Badenach Nicolson (1989), An Institute of the Law of
Scotland (8th ed.), Edinburgh: Law
Society of Scotland, ISBN
9780406178978
, vol. 2, ch. 1,
pp. 11–12.
- ^
Lord Hunter in Lord Advocate v. University of Aberdeen, p.
543, citing an earlier edition of Andrew MacDowall,
Lord Bankton (1993), An Institute of the Laws of Scotland in
Civil Rights: Vol. 1. with Observations upon the Agreement or
Diversity between them and the Laws of England, Edinburgh:
Stair Society, ISBN
9781872517056
, ch. 3, pp. 14–16
and 18.
- ^
Lord Hunter, Lord Advocate v. University of Aberdeen, p.
542, citing Thomas
Craig; James Avon Clyde, transl.
(1934), The Jus Feudale ... With an Appendix Containing the
Books of the Feus, Edinburgh; London: William Hodge & Co.,
OCLC 15085710
, vol. 1, ch. 16,
pp. 40 and 45;
James Dalrymple,
Viscount Stair; John S. More, ed. (1832), The Institutions
of the Law of Scotland, Deduced from its Originals, and Collated
with the Civil, Canon, and Feudal Laws, and with the Customs of
Neighbouring Nations (2nd, rev., corr. & much enl. ed.),
Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, OCLC 60714357
, vol. 2, ch. 3,
p. 60, and vol. 3, ch. 3, p. 27; Bankton, An Institute of the
Laws of Scotland in Civil Rights, vol. 1, ch. 3, p. 16; and
Bell, Principles of the Law of Scotland, s. 1293.
- ^
Angus MacKay (29 March 2000),
Justice and Home Affairs
Committee Official Report [Meeting No 13, 2000], Scottish
Parliament, archived from the original on 15
November 2005, http://web.archive.org/web/20051115202549/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/justice/or-00/ju00-1302.htm
, col. 1010.
- ^
Lord Hunter in Lord Advocate v. University of Aberdeen, p.
548, Outer House, citing Bankton, An Institute of the Laws of
Scotland in Civil Rights, vol. 1, ch. 8, p. 9.
- ^
Lord Mackintosh in Lord Advocate v. University of
Aberdeen, p. 559, Inner House; see also Lord Patrick in the
same case, p. 555.
- ^
Lord Mackintosh in Lord Advocate v. University of
Aberdeen, pp. 559–560, Inner House.
- ^
Lord Hunter in Lord Advocate v. University of Aberdeen, p.
548, Outer House, citing More's notes to Stair, The
Institutions of the Law of Scotland, vol. 1, p. cxlvi.
- ^
Lord Mackintosh in Lord Advocate v. University of
Aberdeen, p. 559, Inner House.
- ^ a
b
c
"What happens when a find is
claimed as treasure trove?", Treasure Trove
[Scotland], Crown Office and
Procurator Fiscal Service, http://www.treasuretrovescotland.co.uk/html/claimedfinds.asp, retrieved 13 April
2008
.
- ^
"Rewards to finders of
treasure trove", Treasure Trove [Scotland], Crown
Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, archived from the original on 24 May
2007, http://web.archive.org/web/20070524175430/http://www.treasuretrovescotland.co.uk/html/rewards.asp, retrieved 13 April
2008
.
- ^
In Favorite v. Miller 407 A. 2d 974 (Connecticut, 1978), the
court stated that the "strict definition" that limited treasure
trove to gold and silver objects was "well-established" in US
law.
- ^
Terry v. Lock 37 S.W. 3d 202 at p. 206 (Arkansas, 2001).
- ^
Favorite v. Miller, at p. 978 n. 2 (the court held it was
unnecessary to decide the issue definitively).
- ^
Hill v. Schrunk 292 P. 2d 141 at p. 143 (Oregon, 1956).
- ^
In Terry v. Lock, 11 years was held to be too little time,
whereas in Benjamin v. Lindner Aviation, Inc. 534 N.W. 2d
400 at p. 407 (Iowa, 1995) and
Ritz v. Selma United Methodist Church 467 N.W. 2d 266 at
p. 269 (Iowa, 1991) the view was taken that periods of 35 and 59
years respectively might be sufficient.
- ^
John M.
Kleeberg (PDF), Treasure Trove Law in the
United States, Numismatik.org – Texte und Materialien zur
Numismatik [Texts and Materials about Numismatics],
pp. 15–16, http://www.muenzgeschichte.ch/downloads/laws-usa.pdf, retrieved 13 April
2008
.
- ^
William
Blackstone; Wayne Morrison (ed.) (2001), Blackstone's
Commentaries on the Laws of England, 2,
London: Cavendish, p. 296, ISBN 9781859414828
(set)
and James Kent (1873), Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.,
ed., Commentaries on American Law, 2
(12th ed.), Boston, Mass.: Cambridge [printed], pp. 357–358,
OCLC 794522
, cited in
Kleeberg, p. 17.
- ^
Corliss v. Wenner 34
P. 3d 1100 (Idaho C.A., 2001).
- ^
Morgan v. Wiser 711 S.W. 2d 220 (Tennessee Court of Appeals,
1985).
- ^
In re Escheat of $92,800 (Philadelphia County
Court of Common
Pleas, 1948): see "Note, Treasure Trove
– History and Development", Temple Law Quarterly
22: 326 at pp. 339–341, 1948–1949
.
- ^
In re Rogers 62 A. 2d 900 at p. 903 (Philadelphia,
1949).
- ^
Kleeberg, p. 18.
- ^
See, for example, Alaska Statutes §12.36.045; California Civil Code §2050; New York Personal Property
Law §254 (Consolidated, 1988); Wisconsin Statutes and Annotations
§§170.07–11.
- ^
New Jersey Statutes
Annotated §46:30C-4.
- ^
Indiana Code
§32-34-8-9.
- ^
Vermont Statutes Annotated,
title 27, §1105.
- ^
Maine Revised Statutes
Annotated, title 33, §1056.
- ^
Kleeberg, pp. 18–19.
- ^
Kleeberg, p. 14.
- ^
Barker v. Bates 23 Am. Dec. 678 (Massachusetts, 1832); Mitchell v.
Oklahoma Cotton Growers' Ass'n 235 P. 597 at p. 599 (Oklahoma, 1925);
Niederlehner v. Weatherley 54 N.E. 2d 312 at p. 315 (Ohio
C.A., 1943); Bishop v. Ellsworth 234 N.E. 2d 49 (Illinois C.A., 1968);
Favorite v. Miller; Morgan v. Wiser, pp.
222–223.
- ^
Favorite, p. 977.
- ^
Kleeberg. p. 19.
- ^
See, for example, Ray v. Flower Hospital 439 N.E. 2d 942
(Ohio C.A., 1981).
- ^
Foster v. Fiduciary Safe Deposit Co. 145 S.W. 139 (Missouri Court of Appeals,
1912); Dennis v. Nw. National Bank 81 N.W. 2d 254 (Minnesota, 1957).
- ^ McDonald v. Railway Express
Agency, Inc. 81 S.E. 2d 525 (Georgia Court of Appeals,
1954).
- ^ Jackson v. Steinburg
200 P. 2d 376 (Oregon, 1948);
Flax v. Monticello Realty Co. 39 S.E. 2d 308 (Virginia, 1946).
- ^ Kleeberg, pp. 20–22.
- ^ Arizona Revised Statutes §12-941; Florida
Statutes §705.104; New York Personal Property Law §256
(Consolidated, 1988); Washington Revised Code §63.21.070;
Wisconsin Statutes and Annotations §170.105; In re Funds in the
Possession of Conemaugh Township Supervisors 724 A. 2d 990
(Philadelphia Commw. Ct., 1999); Pennsylvania v. $7,000.00 in
U.S. Currency 742 A. 2d 711 (Philadelphia Commw. Ct.,
1999).
- ^ Farrare v. City of
Pasco 843 P. 2d 1082 (Washington Court of
Appeals, 1992) (baggage examiner in airport).
- ^ Morrison v. US 492 F.
2d 1219 (Ct. Cl., 1974).
- ^ Kleeberg, pp. 21–22.
- ^ 16 United States
Code §§470aa–mm (2000).
- ^ 25 United States
Code §§3001–3013 at §3002.
- ^ Kleeberg, pp. 22–23.
References
General
- Cunningham,
Richard B. (7 February 2000), "The slow death of treasure
trove", Archaeology (New York, N.Y.: Archaeological
Institute of America), ISSN 0003-8113, http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/trove/, retrieved 18 January
2008
.
- Kleeberg, John M.
(PDF), Treasure Trove Law in the
United States, Numismatik.org – Texte und Materialien zur
Numismatik [Texts and Materials about Numismatics], http://www.muenzgeschichte.ch/downloads/laws-usa.pdf, retrieved 13 April
2008
.
- Lord Mackay of
Clashfern, ed. (2006 Reissue), Halsbury's Laws of
England, 9(2) (4th ed.), London: LexisNexis Butterworths,
pp. 623–629
, paras.
1077–1100.
- Official website for
treasure trove in Scotland, last updated 31 March 2008,
archived from the original on 26 May
2007, http://web.archive.org/web/20070526025849/http://www.treasuretrovescotland.co.uk/index.asp, retrieved 13 April
2008
.
- Lord Simonds, gen.
ed. (1954), Halsbury's Laws of England,
7 (3rd ed.), London: Butterworths & Co.,
p. 540
, paras.
1161–1163.
- Lord Simonds, gen.
ed. (1954), Halsbury's Laws of England,
8 (3rd ed.), London: Butterworths & Co.,
pp. 543–544
, paras.
1039–1040.
Cases
- Attorney-General v. Moore [1893] 1 Ch. 676
- Attorney-General v. Trustees of the British Museum
[1903] 2 Ch. 598
- Attorney-General of the Duchy of Lancaster v. G.E. Overton
(Farms) Ltd. [1982] Ch. 277, C.A.
- Lord Advocate v. University of Aberdeen 1963. S.C.
533
- R. v. Thomas & Willett (1863) Le. & Ca. 313,
12 W.R. 108
Further
reading
Articles
United
Kingdom
- Bland, Roger
(1996), "Treasure Trove and the Case for Reform", Art,
Antiquity and Law (Leicester: Institute of Art and Law): 11,
ISSN 1362-2331
.
- Fincham, Derek
(2008), "A Coordinated Legal and Policy Approach to Undiscovered
Antiquities: Adapting the Cultural Heritage Policy of England and
Wales to Other Nations of Origin", International Journal of
Cultural Property 15: 347–370, doi:10.1017/S094073910808020X
.
- Hanworth,
Rosamund (1995), "Treasure Trove: New Approaches to Antiquities
Legislation", in Tubb, Kathryn Walker, ed., Antiquities: Trade
or Betrayed – Legal, Ethical and Conservation Issues, London:
Archetype in conjunction with United Kingdom Institute for
Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (UKIC) Archaeology
Section, pp. 173–175, ISBN
9781873132708
.
- Miller,
David L. Carey; Sheridan, Alison (1996), "Treasure Trove in
Scotland", Art, Antiquity and Law: 393
.
- Palmer, Norman
(1981), "Treasure Trove and the Protection of Antiquities", Modern Law
Review 44: 178
.
- Palmer, Norman E.
(1993), "Treasure Trove and Title to Discovered Antiquities",
International Journal of Cultural Property
2: 275–318, doi:10.1017/S0940739193000335
.
- Ward, Allan (1992),
"Treasure Trove and the Law of Theft", International Journal of
Cultural Property 1: 195–198, doi:10.1017/S094073919200016X
.
United
States
- Bradley,
Lawrence D., Jr. (September 2000), "U.S. Treasure Trove
Law", GPSolo 17 (6), http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/magazine/2000/sep/sep2000bradley.html
.
- Finders Keepers, Losers
Weepers, New York State Museum, http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/services/233/hisfind.html, retrieved 15 April
2008
.
- Gerstenblith, Patty (1995), "Identity
and Cultural Property: The Protection of Cultural Property in the
United States", B.U. L. Rev. 75: 559 at
596–597
.
- Izuel, Leeanna
(1991), "Note, Property Owners' Constructive Possession of Treasure
Trove: Rethinking the Finders Keepers Rule", UCLA Law
Review 78: 1659 at 1692
.
- "Keep or Weep?", Time, 13
March 1964, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,828254-1,00.html
.
- Krys, Roman (1982),
"Treasure Trove under Anglo-American Law", Anglo-American Law
Review 11: 214
.
- "Annotation, Modern Status of Rules as
to Ownership of Treasure Trove as between Finder and Owner of
Property on which Found", A.L.R. 61:
1180, 1988
.
Books
United
Kingdom
- Beard, Charles
Relly (1933), The Romance of Treasure Trove, London:
Sampson Low & Co, OCLC 9567664
.
-
Buildings,
Monuments and Sites Division, Department for Culture, Media and
Sport ([1999?]–), Treasure Annual Report, London:
Department for Culture, Media and Sport, OCLC 439000765
- Carman, John
(1996), Valuing Ancient Things: Archaeology and Law,
London; New York, N.Y.: Leicester University Press, ISBN
9780718500122
.
- Hill, George
Francis (1936), Treasure Trove in Law and Practice, from the
Earliest Time to the Present Day, Oxford: Clarendon Press, OCLC 7330579
.
- Normand, Andrew
C. (2003), Review of Treasure Trove Arrangements in
Scotland, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive, ISBN
9780755909704
.
-
Queen's and Lord
Treasurer's Remembrancer (2007–), Treasure Trove in
Scotland: Annual Report by the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's
Remembrancer, Edinburgh: RR Donelly, OCLC 226090979
.
- The Reform of Treasure Trove
Arrangements in Scotland, [Scotland]: Scottish
Executive, 2003, ISBN
9780755909711
.
- Rhind,
Alexander Henry (1858), British Archæology: Its Progress
and Demands. (The Law of Treasure Trove: How Can It be Best Adapted
to Accomplish Useful Results?), London: J.R. Smith, OCLC 34268368
, 2 pts.
External
links
This article incorporates text from the article "Treasure trove" by F.W.A., in the Encyclopædia
Britannica, Eleventh Edition, a publication now in
the public
domain.