Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
Not doing property this time around so I'm not intimately familiar with it (any more) but I never read that the finding ever had to be accidental. Where are you getting that? From what I can see, the treasure just has to be "found", as well as meeting the other criteria such as archaeological importance etc. I studied TT from Lyall's textbook and I don't recall any mention of a requirement that the finding be accidental.Hi all,
Just covering Treasure Trove at the moment & getting very confused so would really appreciate if anyone can clarify:
Does the definition of treasure trove still require ACCIDENTAL finding?
It wasn't mentioned in Webb v Ireland, & it clearly wasn't accidental there since they went digging for the chalice with a metal detector. The requirement of 'accidental' finding also doesn't seem to be mentioned in S2 of the National Monuments Act 1994.
BUT all the academic definitions seem to say treasure trove has to be found ACCIDENTALLY, so which is it??
If someone could clarify I would REALLY appreciate it
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Hi all,
Just covering Treasure Trove at the moment & getting very confused so would really appreciate if anyone can clarify:
Does the definition of treasure trove still require ACCIDENTAL finding?
It wasn't mentioned in Webb v Ireland, & it clearly wasn't accidental there since they went digging for the chalice with a metal detector. The requirement of 'accidental' finding also doesn't seem to be mentioned in S2 of the National Monuments Act 1994.
BUT all the academic definitions seem to say treasure trove has to be found ACCIDENTALLY, so which is it??
If someone could clarify I would REALLY appreciate it
This is an outline of an answer I would use for a "treasure trove/finding things in or land" question:
Well for finding things in or on land some cases would be: Armory .v. Delamirie (1722) - it was on finders rights, they held that the priority of rights to possession say that a finder has better title to property if he/she finds it over everyone except the true owner.
Another case on finding objects is: Parker .v. British Airways Board (1982) - here a passenger found a gold bracelet on the floor of an airport. He handed it in, however the airway tried to keep the bracelet and he challenged this. It was said in this case that the owner of the land that the object is found on is usually taken to have better title to the lost property than a passer by. However they did note exceptions, such as places where the public would have access to routinely i.e. the airport. and in that case the finder will have a stronger case. Here the court ruled in favour of Parker.
It is also important to note that the finder must take reasonable steps to find the true owner.
The above are cases of objects found on the land, if it is found in the land the owner of the land will have more strength. Elwes .v. Brigg (1886) demonstrated this, here a pre-historic boat was embedded in the soil and was discovered by the lessees. However the lessor was found to have better title to the property found. It was said that: "the lessor was in possession of the ground, not merely the surface, but of everything that lay beneath the surface down to the centre of the earth and consequently in possession of the boat."
Another case that distinguished items found in or on land was: Waverly Borough Council .v. Fletcher (1995) - it was said that the owner of land has a superior right if the object is in the land, while the finder is superior if the object is found on land, if the owner has not manifested an intention to control the land and things upon it. This case involved an item found in the land in a park, thus the owner was given superiority, they did note however that the fact it was a park and if it had been an object found on the land rather than in the land then the finder would have superiority.
As for treasure trove, the main case would be Webb .v. Ireland (1988) - where a hoard was found that included a gold chalice. The plaintiffs were told by the museum that they would be "honourably treated" if they gave up the hoard. The case made its way to the Supreme Court after the museum didn't follow through. Finlay J. said that the plaintiffs did not have a prima facie title to the hoard. The landowners had a superior right, to which the State succeeded an agreement. The argument then came to whether the State had a prerogative right to Treasure Trove, as the defendant could claim title and the plaintiff a reward. Article 10 of the constitution (state dominion over mineral rights) was used to ground the defendants claim to title. However the plaintiffs were grounded to have a legitimate expectation to be honourably treated and had a right to an reward. As a result of this case section 2(1) of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1994 was created which provides:
"Without prejudice to any other rights howsoever arising in relation to any archaeological object found before the coming into operation of this section, there shall stand vested in the state ownership of an archaeological object found in the State after coming into operation of this section where such an object has no known owner when it was found".
Hope this helps.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement