DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.51387#0017
TREASURE-TROVE 15
In 1868 eighty guineas were found in the wall of an old
house at East Parley, Hants. The Treasury sold eight of them
for £8 8j. ; but subsequently the descendants of the original
owner of the house put in a claim; they proved their title,
received back seventy-two of the coins, and were fully
compensated for the eight which had been sold.1
A Brussels court on 5 April 1823 decided that a hoard of
gold coins, dating from 1786 and earlier, found in pulling
down a house, could not be regarded as treasure, but had
to be handed to the owner of the house, who proved that
his father had been in possession of the house before 1786,
that there had been troubles in the land in 1786-1800, and
that his father died suddenly in 1800.2
On the other hand, in 1932 at Halifax, a deposit of coins
dating as late as 1891, in the wall of a cottage, was declared
Seuffert’s Archiv fur Entscheidungen der obersten Gerichte, iv, 1851,
pp. 15-18. Cp. the Dresden case, when in 184g the heirs of a man who
had owned a house in 1813 made good their claim to a treasure which
they alleged must have been buried by him at that time. Matthiae,
Der Schatzfund, Jena Diss., 1898, p. 21, from Seuffert’s Archiv, iv, no. 10;
Girtanner, Rechtsfalle, p. 112, no. cxiv.
1 This answers, so far as English practice is concerned, the question
raised by Perozzi, p. 14, whether if the owner of a hoard, who had been
supposed untraceable, turns up, the hoard is to be regarded as treasure-
trove or not. The whole administration is based on a presumption,
since certainty that an owner or his representative will never turn up
can never be obtained. If the presumption is shown to be unwarranted,
the hoard passes beyond the scope of the law of treasure-trove. There
is no limitation by statute in any country of the time within which such
a claim may be made; yet it is reasonable that some such limitation
should exist. I do not know of any case of a claimant turning up years
after a find had been adjudged to be treasure-trove, and establishing
his claim. Apart from the difficulty of upsetting the court’s decision
after so long a time, there is the point put by Pufendorf (quoted by Sell,
i, p. 183): ‘nam etsi concedam, dominium thesauri non acquiri, si
dominus superveniat, tamen cur nec possessio interim, quamdiu domi-
nus ignoratur, acquiri possit, ut demum capio longi temporis accedat,
ego quidem non pervideo.’ See also Buckland, Main Institutions, p. 13g.
2 A. Riemer, Der Anspruch auf Finderlohn nach Leipzig Diss.,
1901, p. 24, note 2, from Dalloz, Repertoire general.
In 1868 eighty guineas were found in the wall of an old
house at East Parley, Hants. The Treasury sold eight of them
for £8 8j. ; but subsequently the descendants of the original
owner of the house put in a claim; they proved their title,
received back seventy-two of the coins, and were fully
compensated for the eight which had been sold.1
A Brussels court on 5 April 1823 decided that a hoard of
gold coins, dating from 1786 and earlier, found in pulling
down a house, could not be regarded as treasure, but had
to be handed to the owner of the house, who proved that
his father had been in possession of the house before 1786,
that there had been troubles in the land in 1786-1800, and
that his father died suddenly in 1800.2
On the other hand, in 1932 at Halifax, a deposit of coins
dating as late as 1891, in the wall of a cottage, was declared
Seuffert’s Archiv fur Entscheidungen der obersten Gerichte, iv, 1851,
pp. 15-18. Cp. the Dresden case, when in 184g the heirs of a man who
had owned a house in 1813 made good their claim to a treasure which
they alleged must have been buried by him at that time. Matthiae,
Der Schatzfund, Jena Diss., 1898, p. 21, from Seuffert’s Archiv, iv, no. 10;
Girtanner, Rechtsfalle, p. 112, no. cxiv.
1 This answers, so far as English practice is concerned, the question
raised by Perozzi, p. 14, whether if the owner of a hoard, who had been
supposed untraceable, turns up, the hoard is to be regarded as treasure-
trove or not. The whole administration is based on a presumption,
since certainty that an owner or his representative will never turn up
can never be obtained. If the presumption is shown to be unwarranted,
the hoard passes beyond the scope of the law of treasure-trove. There
is no limitation by statute in any country of the time within which such
a claim may be made; yet it is reasonable that some such limitation
should exist. I do not know of any case of a claimant turning up years
after a find had been adjudged to be treasure-trove, and establishing
his claim. Apart from the difficulty of upsetting the court’s decision
after so long a time, there is the point put by Pufendorf (quoted by Sell,
i, p. 183): ‘nam etsi concedam, dominium thesauri non acquiri, si
dominus superveniat, tamen cur nec possessio interim, quamdiu domi-
nus ignoratur, acquiri possit, ut demum capio longi temporis accedat,
ego quidem non pervideo.’ See also Buckland, Main Institutions, p. 13g.
2 A. Riemer, Der Anspruch auf Finderlohn nach Leipzig Diss.,
1901, p. 24, note 2, from Dalloz, Repertoire general.