INDUSTRIES 



power to recover against his fellow-adventurers. 

 If on investigation a question should arise as to 

 the sum due to the petitioning creditor, the vice- 

 warden, on request of either party, would direct 

 an issue to the stannary court to try that point by 

 a jury. The law of 1752, which established 

 this procedure, was silent as to the mode the 

 creditor was to pursue for recovery, and it would 

 seem to have a twofold aspect as to jurisdiction, 

 with reference to the different objects it em- 

 braced. The first paragraph of the Act was 

 confined to a transaction altogether of legal charac- 

 ter, namely, a contract between an adventurer 

 in a mine (the purser), exclusively of his co- 

 adventurers, and a merchant, for the supply of 

 material, or a working tinner for the sale of 

 his labour. The other aspect is shown in the 

 following paragraphs which related to the settle- 

 ment of the purser's claims upon his partners, 

 and this, as a matter of equity, should have been 

 settled by the vice-warden. The course of 

 procedure, therefore, would have been consistent 

 throughout. The creditor would proceed against 

 the purser at common law in the court of the 

 steward, and the purser would have his remedy 

 against his partners, in equity, in the court of 

 the vice-warden. 



The effects of the unlawful practice of suing 

 for debts directly to the vice-warden was to 

 diminish the activities of the lower courts by 

 withdrawing from them nearly all their proper 

 business, since, with regard to simple contracts 

 having no connexion with mining, recourse, by 

 this time, was usually had to the common law. 1 

 Matters thus continuing for a considerable period, 

 the above exercised jurisdiction of the vice-warden 

 was suddenly called in question and denied by 

 two successive law-suits. 8 As a result, both vice- 

 warden and stewards declined to hold courts 

 until their respective jurisdictions could be set- 

 tled, and confusion continued until the passage 

 of the Stannaries Act of 1837. 



The stewards' courts, of which there were 

 four, had been the place of usual resort for stan- 

 nary cases. The stewards, who seem to have 

 been appointees of the warden, 3 began to exer- 

 cise their authority at least as early as 1 243.* Like 

 the vice-warden, they were invested with powers 

 of magistrates within their respective stannaries, 6 

 and their jurisdiction in ordinary court matters 

 has already been discussed. In general, it may 

 be remarked that their courts were to that of the 

 vice-warden as the common-law courts are to 

 those of chancery. In addition to the exercise 

 of his magisterial and ordinary judicial powers, it 



'The statute 1 6 Chas. I, c. 15, gives leave for 

 tinners to sue one another outside the stannary 

 courts. 



* See Hall v. Vivian, printed in Smirke, Vice v. 

 Thomas, 37. 



3 E. Smirke, Vice v. Thomas, App. p. 97. 



4 Pipe R. 27 Hen. III. 



6 Convoc. Cornw. 12 Chas. I, c. 12. 



was the steward's duty to hold special sessions 

 at the request of litigants, when necessary, for the 

 trial of rights in tin works, 6 and to hold ' cus- 

 tomary ' courts which, according to ancient 

 custom, ' were always held the morrow after 

 certain fairs within each stannary for the benefit 

 of such as do attend the fair and court.' 7 



If we omit from consideration the two last 8 

 we shall find the legal business of the lower 

 courts transacted in thirteen sessions, 9 held each 

 year in each of the four districts, of which two, 

 one in the spring and one in the fall, were courts 

 leet. In all, however, the cases, criminal and 

 civil, were decided by a jury of tinners (usually 

 four in number), 10 a procedure at least as old as 

 1 305," and probably older. The pleas consisted 

 of all manner of personal actions, many of them 

 relating to trespasses, for taking tin and for enter- 

 ing opera stannaria, or tin works. 18 In 1495, 

 when the practice of entering bounds in the 

 court rolls seems first to have been established, 13 

 we find them described as opus stanni or opera 

 stannaria, and there seems little doubt, therefore, 

 that the court exercised the power of adjudicating 

 upon this species of property. There were also, 

 to a late date, numerous entries of hue and cry 

 raised in respect to trespasses levied upon tinners, 

 and presentments of bailiffs of unjust raisings of 

 hue and cry were a common cause of amercia- 

 ment. 14 Cases of debt and contract, assault and 

 battery, 15 offences peculiar to mining law, such as 

 the diverting of a mine's watercourses, formed a 

 large proportion of the legal business transacted. 

 Another class of cases shows how completely the 

 tinners were separated from the ordinary courts ; 

 for example, the encroaching upon a neighbour's 

 cornfield with one's swine and geese, 18 infractions 

 of the Assize of Beer, 8 or, shortly after the 

 Black Death, evasions of the Statute of Labourers. 17 



A phenomenon illustrating the connexion of 

 the steward's court with the hundred and shire 



6 Convoc. Cornw. 1 6 Hen. VIII, c. 30. 



7 Convoc. Cornw. 22 Jas. I, c. 1 8, 27 ; 12 Chas. I, 

 c. 22. 



6 Of customary courts not a record remains. Special 

 courts are entered under that name, although it is 

 probable that the inquisitions and findings of juries 

 respecting trespasses in such works (of which entries 

 are frequent) may be referable to adjourned courts so 

 held upon the works themselves. 



9 A tri-weekly barmote court was held in the Derby- 

 shire mines by the barmaster and a miners' jury 

 (Compleat Mineral Laws of Derbyshire, pt. iv, art. 2 ; 

 pt. i, art. 1 6). 



10 Convoc. Cornw. 1 6 Hen. VIII, c. 3. Harrison, 

 Report on the Laws and Jurisdiction of the Stannaries, 

 p. 170. 



"Chart. R. 33 Edw. I, m. 40. 



u P. R. O. Ct. R. bdle. 156, No. 27. 



13 E. Smirke, Vice v. Thomas, App. 101. 



14 P. R. O. Ct. R. bdle. 1 68, No. 5. 

 "Ibid. bdle. 156, No. 27. 



16 Ibid. bdle. 159, No. i. 



17 Ibid. bdle. 1 6 1, No. 8 1. 



533 



