Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

But no person under the age of discretion, or being non compos mentis (g), can be felo de se, even though in the latter case the person becomes of sound mind before he dies (h).

Neither is a person who designs to commit suicide deemed a felo de se, unless he die within a year and a day after the act (i).

A felo de se forfeits all chattels, real as well as personal, belonging to him at and after the time of committing the act, or of which he may be possessed jointly with or in right of his wife (k). And the inquisition having relation to the act of suicide, all intermediate alienations are avoided (7).

But the act of suicide does not work a corruption of blood, so that the lands of inheritance of a felo de se are not forfeited, nor is his wife barred of her dower (m).

The forfeiture of the goods and chattels of a felo de se is to the king (n), or his lawful grantee (o), and they cannot be claimed by prescription,

(g) It has been thought that a person who kills himself must be non compos mentis, on the supposition that no man in his senses could do a thing so repugnant to nature and reason; 3 Mod. 100; but in Hawk. Pl. C. c. 27, s. 3, this notion is justly exploded. And see 4 Bl. Com. 189.

(h) Plow. Com. 260; Fitz. Abr. tit. Coron. pl. 412, 244, cites 8 E. 2, 22 E. 3, 3 Inst. 54.

(i) 3 Inst. 54.

(k) Plow. Com. 260, in Hales v. Petit; 3 Inst. 55; 1 Hale, H. P. C. 413. It has been said that choses in action to which a felo de se is jointly entitled with another are wholly forfeited, with the exception of the case of two joint merchants; contra, as to joint personal chattels in possession; 8 E. 4, 4, Plow. Com. 259 b; 3 Inst. 55; Sir T. Raym. 7. But again it has been said that he shall forfeit a moiety only of such joint chattels as may be severed, and nothing as executor or administrator; Hawk. P. C. c. 27, s. 7; 3 Bac. Abr. 143 (C.)

Equity will relieve against a forfeiture of a chattel by a trustee; King v. Cooper, Hardr. 176; even against the king, upon the stat. of 33 H. 8, c. 39; but the application should be to the Court of Exchequer, as a court of revenue; ib. 176, 469; 1 Vern. 439; 2 Atk. 223.

(1) Plow. Com. 260; 5 Co. 110.

(m) Plow. Com. 261; 3 Inst. 55; Britt. c. 7; 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 27, s. 8; Hale, H. P. C. 413. Corruption of blood is taken away by 54 Geo. 3, c. 145, in all cases except treason and murder; ante, p. 631, n. (l).

(n) Where the forfeiture belongs to the crown, it is now usual for the king to make a warrant under his sign manual, on a memorial being presented by a creditor of the deceased, authorising the Ecclesiastical Court to grant letters of administration to the memorialist, and the administrator would be answerable for the debts of the deceased, and could not dispute the validity of the administration against his own act; Megit v. Johnson, Dougl. 542; Serjt. Williams's ed. of 1 Saund. 272 a, n. 1.

(0) Ante, p. 638, n. (ƒ). Whether a grant from the crown of the chattels of all felons of themselves will pass the chattels of a felo de se, claimed under a franchise forfeited by attainder of treason after such grant, see The Bishop of Chester v. Webb, Dy. 107 b.

By the stat of 4 & 5 W. & M. c. 22, it is enacted, that no corporation, lord or lords of manors, or other person or persons, having grants by charter, or other good conveyances, who have enrolled, and had the same allowed in and by the Court of B. R., shall be compelled to plead the same to any inquisition returned by any

as in the case of estrays, waifs, wreck, &c.(p).

It would seem that such goods are not liable in the hands of the king to the debts of the felo de se, nor indeed in the hands of the grantee, except to satisfy debts due to the crown (q).

Nor are the goods and chattels forfeited, until it be found by the coroner's inquisition (upon the oath of twelve men) that the party is felo de se (r), which finding must be super visum corporis(s).

The coroner, who is a judicial officer (t), must be present at the view of the body, or the inquisition will be void (u); and he is at

coroner; and that if there be any corporations, lords of manors, or other persons, who have such charters or grants from the crown for felons' goods, deodands, and other forfeitures, such corporations, &c. shall not be compelled to enrol their whole charters and grants, but bring in the same to the clerk of the crown of the said court, who shall enrol so much thereof as may express and set forth the grants of such felons' goods, deodands and forfeitures, and no more; and from and after such enrolment, no corporation, &c., or other persons, grantees of such goods or forfeitures, shall be compelled to plead the same in the said court to any inquisition thereafter filed therein, touching any goods found thereby; and the act inflicts a penalty upon any clerk of the crown who shall issue out any process against any grantees of such felons' goods, deodands and other forfeitures after such enrolment or entry; see Lex Man. p. 74. Vide also the following note in Serjt. Williams's ed. of Saund. Rep. p. 272. "Since the passing of this act [4 & 5 W. & M. c. 22, sup.] the coroners have discontinued returning their inquisitions into the K. B. If a man be found felo de se by the coroner's inquisition, the jury ought also to find whether he had any goods and chattels at the time he committed the felony or not; and if he had any, to specify the same in an inventory annexed to the inquisition; the form may be seen in the books of practice of the crown, Crown Circ. Assist. 90, &c. The goods may then be seized for the use of the king or his grantee, and if trespasses be brought against the grantee for such seizure, he must in his justification set out the grant of goods of felons of

themselves, and the inquisition before the coroner finding the deceased to be such a felon, by which he forfeited his goods, and that those in question were his. If the coroner's inquisition omit finding the goods of the felo de se, that, it seems, may be supplied by a writ of melius inquirendum directed to the sheriff; 1 H. H. P. C. 415."

(p) Foxley's case, 5 Co. 109 b; Co. Lit. 114 b.

(9) 4 Leo. 6, ca. 28.

(r) Plow. Com. 260; Rex v. Ward, 1 Sid. 150; S. C. 1 Keb. 548. But see S. C. 1 Lev. 8, in which it is said that the goods were held to be forfeited to the king, by the act itself, before inquisition; but this seems to be a mistake; vide n. 1 to 1 Saund. 362.

(s) 3 Inst. 55; 4 Inst. 271; 1 Hale H. P. C. 414, 415; 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 27, s. 11, 12.

(t) But as no other officer is recognised by the law in an inquisition of this nature, it is the duty of the coroner to summon the jury, so that he acts also in a ministerial character; vide also 4 Inst. 271.

(u) 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 27, s. 11, 12; 2 ib. c. 9, s. 23, 24; 2 Hale, H. P. C. 58. See the act of 4 Ed. 1, st. 2. Vide also Rex v. Ferrand (the Oldham case), 3 Barn. & Ald. 260; 1 Chitty, K. B. 745; in which the Court of B. R. refused to grant a mandamus to compel the coroner to proceed in the inquiry of the cause of death, the whole proceeding being illegal and extra-judicial; for the jury had first seen the body, and were then sworn by the coroner's clerk, and subsequently were sworn by the coroner, but not super visum corporis.

such view to administer the oath to the jury super visum corporis. Doubts have been entertained whether a coroner can act by deputy (x); and as it has been a common practice to appoint more than one coroner in a county, there would seem to be some grounds for this doubt (y).

If the body cannot be found, the coroner has no jurisdiction, but a presentment may be made, as well in that case as upon the coroner's omission, either before the justices of oyer and terminer, or before the justices of the peace, who have power by their commission to inquire of all felonies; or the presentment may be in the King's Bench, if the offence be committed in the county where that court sits (z).

It was formerly supposed that the executors or administrators of the deceased could not traverse the coroner's inquisition (a), though they should have a traverse to an inquisition by justices of the peace for the county (b); but it should seem to be fully settled, that the coroner's inquisition may be removed by the executors or administrators of the deceased into the K. B. by certiorari, and there traversed (c).

No traverse, however, can be taken to an inquisition not finding the party felo de se, as if the inquisition find that he was non compos mentis (d); yet, if it should appear that the finding in such a case

(x) Rex v. Ferrand, sup. And see Crompt. Just. 227; 2 Hale, H. P. C. 58.

(y) But see Ex parte Parnell, 1 Jac. & Walk. 451, where a coroner had acted by deputy for twelve months, and no notice was taken by the court of its illegality; and see 3 Barn. & Ald. 264, in Rex v. Ferrand.

(z) Foxley's case, ubi sup.; Stanlack's case, 1 Vent. 182; 1 H. H. P. C. 414; 2 ib. 589; 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 27, s. 12; 3 Inst. 55. But the grand jury have no power to find such an inquisition under a general charge from the judge of assize; Rex v. Killinghall, 1 Burr. 17.

(a) 3 Inst. 55, cites Stanf. Pl. Cor. 183 d. And see Br. Coron. pl. 151; ib. Travers per sans ceo, pl. 229, citing 8 E. 4, 4, 3.

(6) 3 Inst. 55.

(c) 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 27, s. 12; 2 ib. c. 9, s. 52. Lord Hale also was of opinion that the inquisition was traversable; Hal. H. P. C. 416, 417, cites Barclay's case, B. R. 1658, and Page's case in the Exch.

VOL. II.

P. 45 E. 3. And see Rex v. Storke, 3 Keb. 800, citing Rowell's [or qy. Aldenham's] case; Ripley's case, T. Jones, 198; S. C. Skin. 45; The Queen v. Clerk, Salk. 377; S. C. 7. Mod. 16; 2 Lev. 141, in The King v. Packer; The King v. Aldenham [or Alderman], ib. 152; 3 Keb. 564, 566, 604; The King v. Stanlake [or Stanlack], 2 Keb. 859; S. C. 1 Vent. 181. Vide also 1 Vent. 239, 278.

(d) Rex v. Storke, sup. And see Anon. 1 Vent. 239; 1 Saund. Rep. 363, n. 1, by Serjt. Williams. But see Br. Coron, pl. 151.

Although a coroner returns the inquisition to B. R. finding the deceased non compos, yet he is not obliged to return the depositions, unless something should be depending before the court to render it necessary; 2 Str. 1073.

See further as to the duty of a coroner, 4 Inst. 271; 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 9; 2 Hal. H. P. C. c. 8; the stats. 4 Ed. 1, st. 2, and 25 Geo. 2, c. 29, furnishing additional powers for the removal of coroners in cases

G

were obtained by any indirect proceedings of the coroner, the Court of B. R. would grant a melius inquirendum directed to the sheriff or to special commissioners, who are to proceed on the testimony of witnesses, but not super visum corporis (e). It is, however, the practice not to grant a melius inquirendum when the inquisition is traversable (ƒ), nor unless a manifest misbehaviour in the coroner is established by affidavit (g).

It appears that if the goods of a felo de se are in the possession of any person who refuses to deliver them up, the king may prefer an information in the Exchequer in the nature of trover and conversion; and that in case of debts being due to the deceased, the king may either proceed by information in B. R., as in the case of The King v. Sutton (h), or in the Exchequer by his attorney-general, and that the latter is the most usual practice (i).

And that a grantee of the chattels of a felo de se may bring an action of trover for the recovery of goods detained by a third person, and may have a scire facias for debts of record, or an action of debt for any other debt due to the deceased (k).

of extortion, neglect of duty, or misdemeanor; Ex parte Parnell, ubi sup.; 7 T. R. 52; 2 Barn. & Ald. 203.

A coroner has been committed for falsely returning an inquisition of felo de se, the party being lunatic; Rex v. Wakefield, 1 Str. 69.

(e) 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 9, s. 53; Rex v. Bunney, 1 Salk. 190; S. C. 3 Mod. 238; Rex v. Hethersal, 3 Mod. 80; and see Cro. Eliz. 371. And the omission to find the goods of the felo de se may be supplied by a writ of melius inquirendum; Hale H. P. C. 415; 2 Keb. 859, in Stanlake's case. And see S. C. 1 Mod. 82; ante, p. 639, n. (o).

(f) Ripley's case, T. Jones, 198. Yet upon a case clearly made out against the coroner, the court of B. R. would set aside the inquisition; Barclay's case, and Stanlake's case, ubi sup. ; Anon. Vent. 352. In Stanlake's case, 1 Mod. 82, Newdigate said, "that in the case of Miles Bartley [Barclay] the inquiry was not filed, and that that was the reason why a new one was granted."

(g) Rex v. Hethersal, Rex v. Bunny, and Ripley's case, sup.; 1 Vent. 182, 352. (h) 1 Saund. 273 (ubi sup.): In this case the reporter suggests that the infor

mation ought to have averred the fact that the party was found felo de se, and then to have shown the substance of the inquisition, and concluded with a prout, &c. And see 2 Lutw. 1342. But this does not seem to be necessary, see N. 7 to 1 Saund. 275 a.

(i) 1 Saund. 272 a, n. (1), by Serjeant Williams.

(k) Ib.; Serjeant Williams adds, “in which action it is necessary to state in the declaration the nature of the debt, the grant of such felon's debts to the plaintiff or some of his ancestors, and the inquisition before the coroner, whereby an action, &c., Brownl. Rediv. 181; Asht. 205; and if the debt arises on a bond or other specialty, it seems proper to aver that the deceased had such bond or specialty in the place at the time he killed himself. The defendant in his plea must deny the debt to be due to the deceased, and therefore if the declaration states that the defendant was indebted to the deceased by bond, he must plead non est factum; if on a simple contract, non assumpsit, &c.; if he says nil debet to the plaintiff, he admits that he was indebted to the deceased, and all that will be incumbent for the plaintiff to prove is, that he is a grantee of such goods, and

As the goods of a felo de se are not forfeited until inquisition found, the forfeiture is saved by a pardon of the offence before such finding (1); but a general pardon after inquisition, without words of restitution, will not revest the property in the administrator of the deceased, though it will operate as a release of a debt which the king might otherwise have claimed (m).

The coroner's inquest must show with certainty the nature of the felonious act, and describe the wound, and conclude that it was the cause of the death (n), sic seipsum murdravit, or it will be quashed (o): but if it be full in substance, the coroner may be served with a rule to amend a defect in form (p). So where it was found that G. seipsum felonicè submersus fuit, but it was not said that he threw himself into the water, nor did the inquisition conclude with " and so he died," the court ordered the inquisition to be amended, the substance, namely, felonicè submersus fuit being found (q).

DEODANDS (r).-Deodands (which sometimes also belong to the lord of the manor by grant from the crown) are defined to be omnia quæ movent ad mortem (s), and have been supposed to have originated in the notion which our ancestors had of purgatory; for when a person came to a sudden and untimely death, without having time to the defendant will not be permitted to give any other evidence but payment to the plaintiff."

(1) Rex v. Saloway, 3 Mod. 101; Rex v. Ward, 1 Sid. 150; S. C. 1 Keb. 548. But see S. C. 1 Lev. 8; 1 Keb. 66; ante, p. 640, n. (r). See also Lock v. Etherington, 1 Sid. 264.

(m) Toomes v. Etherington, 1 Saund. 361; S. C. 1 Lev. 120; 1 Sid. 167; 1 Keb. 628. And see the pleadings in this case, Lex Man. App. ca. 21; 1 Saund. 352 b; Rex v. Saloway, sup. Vide also 5 Co. 110 b, in Foxley's case; 2 Mod. 53, in Rex v. Turvil; 3 Mod. 242, 243, in Rex v. Johnson; 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 37, s. 54.

(n) The Queen v. Clerk, 1 Salk. 377; S. C. 7 Mod. 16; Lex Man. 83, ca. 12. And see Anon. 12 Mod. 112.

In the above case of the Queen & Clerk, Holt, C. J., held, that a coroner need not go ex officio to take the inquest, but ought to be sent for; that to bury the body without sending for the coroner was a misdemeanor, and that the body might be dug up again within a reasonable time, and so

as not to produce infection. And see 2 Hal. H. P. C. 58. But this should be with leave of the court of B. R.; Barclay's case, ubi sup., 1 Str. 167, 533.

(0) Inquisitions have been quashed for omitting this conclusion; Rex v. Aldenham (or Alderman), 2 Lev. 152; S. C. 3 Keb. 604; 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 27, ss. 13, 14. But it would not seem to be essential. See Hales v. Petit, Plow. 255 a; Rex v. Warner, 1 Keb. 66; The Queen v. Clerk, ubi sup.

(p) Rex v. Harrison, 1 Sid. 225; 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 27, s. 15.

(9) Rex v. Glover, 1 Sid. 259; S. C. 1 Keb. 907. And see Rex v. Saloway, 3 Mod. 100.

(r) This royalty is not specified in the 82nd clause of 4 & 5 Vict. c. 35, among the manorial rights excluded from the operation of the act, unless expressly commuted, but it is embraced by the general words " or any other manorial rights

whatever."

(s) Lex Man. 72; Bract. 1. 3, c. 5, 122 a; Hawk. Pl. C. 66, 67, c. 26, s. 6.

« AnteriorContinuar »