Prosper United Mining Company In re, the Palmer's 26-46 118 77 77 ......... Robinson's Executor's Case Tredwen v. Bourne Vice v. Thomas T. V. W. Walters v. The Northern Coal Mining Company Watson v. Spratley. Wood v. Lead bitter Wright v. Hale...... ..................... 96 52 ERRATA AND CORRIGENDA. P. 8, line 33, after words "Hext v. Gill," insert (L. R. vii., Ch. 699.) P. 61, lines 7–8, for words “forms the first Schedule,' read "forms part of the first Schedule." INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER I. ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE STANNARIES COURT. THE object of the following pages is essentially practical, and the writer does not propose to enter into any matters of mere antiquarian research, but it is necessary to say a few words upon the history of the Stannaries Court previous to the Acts 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 106, and 18 Vict., c. 32, by which the jurisdiction of that Court was confirmed and enlarged in many important particulars. There seems to have existed from the earliest times a personage, whose name appears in old records as the "custos stannariarum." He was an officer of the Crown appointed for the government of districts producing tin under colour of the rights formerly assumed by the Crown over such parts of the kingdom as royal desmesnes ("Quia Stammarie sunt nostra dominica," King John's Charter to the Tinners). The word "custos stannariarum" is commonly translated "Warden of the Stannaries," and it was the practice from very early times to appoint some nobleman, or other illustrious person, to be Lord Warden of Stannaries, who substituted as Carew says (Survey of Cornwall, ed. 1769, p. 17), some gentleman of the shire of good calling and discretion to be his Vice-Warden." It appears from the list of Vice-Wardens from the reign of Edward VI. to the year 1812, given in Lyson's Cornwall, p. 7, that the latter officer was in those days invariably a native of Cornwall. Besides the B Lord Warden and the Vice-Warden, who were, originally at least, officers of the Crown, the Duke of Cornwall appears from the time of the first gift of the Duchy to the heir apparent, to have been in the habit of appointing an officer of his own, called in old records the "seneschallus," or steward, to administer justice and protect the duke's interest within the Duchy. Although the various Royal Charters to tinners (which are said by Sir E. Smirke, in his appendix to the case Vice v. Thomas, to be merely confirmatory of ancient prescriptive franchises), especially the Charter of 33 Ed. I., exempting tinners from answering in any other Court than that of the "custos" to complaints arising within the Stannaries (except complaints touching land, life, and limb), clearly treat the Lord Warden as holding a judicial office for the determination of common law causes, it appears that in very early times these matters got referred to the Court of the Duke's Steward. In order to obviate any difficulty on this head the practice for several hundred years was to appoint the same person both Lord Warden and Steward. He appointed one Vice-Warden of the Stannaries generally and a Sub-steward for each of the four Stannaries of Blackmore, Foymore, Tywarnhaile, and the united Stannary of Kirrier and Penwith. It appears, moreover, that. although the Steward of the Duchy in very early times usurped the Lord Warden's functions as a Common Law judge, he did not interfere in Equity matters, and that the Lord Warden had always a prescriptive jurisdiction in matters of conscience, at least such would appear to be the case from the preamble to the 6 & 7 Wm. 4, c. 106. There is, however, a good deal of obscurity about the whole of this subject--Carew states (Survey of Cornwall, p. 17) that, "by ancient charters there is assigned a warden of the stannaries who supplieth the place both of a Judge for Law and of a Chancellor for conscience, and so taketh hearing of causes either in Forma juris or de jure et æquo." The case of Vice v. Thomas (published with an appendix and notes by the late Vice-Warden of the Stannaries Sir Edward Smirke), decided that there was an original equity jurisdiction in the Vice-Warden, subject to appeal to the Lord Warden, and the point does not now admit of dispute. The above remarks have been considered a necessary introduction to the subject matter of this chapter. Such readers as are anxious to pursue the question of the Stannaries jurisdiction, from an archæological point of view, are referred to the above-mentioned appendix and notes of Sir E. Smirke to Vice v. Thomas, where every piece of information, which a search among old records can obtain, has been collected and given to the public. The documents referred to by Sir Edward Smirke as having been made available to him by the assistant keeper of records in the Tower are, it is presumed, now deposited in the Public Record Office, Chancery Lane. (See appendix, p. 21, to the 18th report of the Deputy-Keeper of the Public Records for a list of documents transferred from the Tower to Chancery Lane.) The Introductory Notice to the Book on the Procedure in the Court of the Vice-Warden of the Stannaries, published by authority at Truro in 1856, contains a good sketch of the jurisdiction of the Court from a practical point of view. The fact that the Common Law jurisdiction of the Stannaries Court, as opposed to its Equity |