removed from the said Great House in St. Augustine's Back, in the city of Bristol, to the premises comprised in the assessment the subject of Richard Rowlatt's appeal. And that the conditional contract for the purchase thereof entered into by the trustees should be completed and carried into effect. And it was ordered that the scheme hereafter mentioned should be the scheme for the future regulation of the charity, and that the removal of the school should be completed and the necessary alterations in the premises effected by the trustees with the sanction and direction of the Court.

The scheme above referred to provided, inter alia

1. That the charity and the lands and property thereof should continue under the management and control of the Society of Merchants Venturers, herein designated the trustees.

2. That the trustees should, with the sanction and direction of the Court, complete on behalf of the charity the purchase of the house and premises at Stapleton, and that the messuage and premises should thenceforth from the date of such completion, be called Colston's Hospital.

3. That the trustees might borrow money upon mortgage, and sell the Great House and premises.

5. That the trustees should, with the sanction of the Court of Chancery, make such alterations in the messuage and premises and land at Stapleton aforesaid as should be necessary for the adaptation thereof to the purposes of the hospital or free school.

11. That the proportion of eighty town and twenty country boys, as constituted by the said Edward Colston, should not be interfered with, but that the existing limitation of eligibility by birth of town boys should be extended to the limits of the present borough.

12. That the surplus of the charity income, which should remain undisposed of after making the payments and investments thereinbefore directed to be made, should be applied in adding to the number of boys in the existing school such a number as the surplus income of the charity should from time to time be sufficient for.

The conditional contract for purchase

was completed on the 14th of July 1859, when the premises were conveyed to the present feoffees of the estates comprised in the settlement of 1708, upon the trusts thereof, and subject to the said order and scheme.

The alterations and additions which had been made to the school premises received the sanction and approval of the Court of Chancery.

The trustees and nominees hold monthly and other visitations of the school for the purposes thereof, but the trustees conduct all business in reference to the school and the trust estates, which it is not necessary to conduct on the school premises, in their common Hall in the city of Bristol.

Boys have been and may continue to be admitted to the hospital from the respondent parish.

The messuage and premises and land are situate in the parish of Stapleton, and up to the time of the removal of the school to the premises were always rated for the support of the poor of the parish, and in consequence of their value materially contributed to such support.

The rate is dated the 24th of October 1861, and the assessment on Mr. Rowlatt comprises his apartments as well as the premises used for school purposes.

Out of the 9 acres and 22 perches which were purchased, 2 acres and 39 perches are let off to a tenant, who is separately assessed.

The residue of the land purchased consists only of the house and offices, roads, play-ground, shrubberies, a bathing-place, about a quarter of an acre of pleasure-ground or garden in front of the master's rooms, of which he has the exclusive enjoyment, the boys being shut out from it, and about a quarter of an acre of garden ground cultivated by the boys themselves for their

amusement.

No profit is made by the sale of the vegetables or fruit, but the whole produce of the garden, which is very trivial, is consumed by the boys themselves or the establishment.

The boys are ordinarily excluded from the ground in front of the master's rooms, to which he has a separate entrance.

The master's apartments consist of three

The lower rooms open into a passage which communicates with the dormitories, through doorways which are closed or opened at the discretion of the head-master. The trustees and nominees have access to all parts of the establishment, including the master's rooms.

The establishment consists of 120 boys, five under-masters, and seven servants. The head-master is appointed during the pleasure of the trustees, and receives a salary of 200 guineas per annum, and has meals for himself and family from the school-house kitchen, beyond which any extras are provided by himself. He receives no perquisites from the pupils, nor any profit from the land. Although the master's wife, who resides with him, holds no appointment in the employ of the trustees, she, in fact, discharges all those duties in the household which, if the master were not a married man, would devolve on a matron to discharge.

Since the death of his two children Mr. Rowlatt has had two nieces as frequent visitors residing with him in his apartments, and on some occasions his mother-in-law.

The parish officers of Stapleton rated Richard Rowlatt, the head-master, as occupier of the said house, garden and premises used for the purposes of the said hospital or free-school, against which he appealed.

Upon the hearing of the appeal the Court, hearing counsel on both sides, amended the rate by striking out the name of the appellant, on the ground of his having no beneficial interest in the premises.

GREEN'S CASE.

In this case, "Frederick William Green, and others the Merchants Venturers, feoffees, nominees, and trustees of Colston's School," were rated as the occupiers of a house and premises.

The appellants are trustees of Colston's school or hospital, under the circumstances disclosed in the previous case, the facts of which are to be taken as incorporated in the present case; with the additional facts that by the rules of the founder (still in force under the scheme) the boys must all be educated in the tenets of the Church of

The appellants are rated for so much of the said house and premises as is not appropriated to the use of the head master Richard Rowlatt, in manner already set forth.

The question for the opinion of the Court in both cases was, whether, under the circumstances, the appellants were liable to be rated.

If the Court should be of opinion in the affirmative the rate was to be affirmed; if in the negative, to be amended by striking out the names of the appellants.

W. H. Cooke, for the appellants (1), contended, that the appellants were not rateable, inasmuch as there was no beneficial occupation, the occupation being for charitble purposes. He cited The King v. St. Luke's Hospital (2), The Queen v. the Licensed Victuallers' Society (3), The Queen v. the Baptist Missionary Society (4), The Queen v. Temple (5); and distinguished The Governors of the Poor of Bristol v. Wait (6) and The King v. St. Giles, York (7).

Gray and Gilmore Evans, for the repondents, contended, that there was a distinction between the case of an occupation for a strictly public purpose, and that for the purpose of a private charity; that in the latter case there was a beneficial occupation, by which was not meant of a necessity a profitable occupation to the individual rated. Cur. adv. vult.

On the 6th of November the judgment of the Court (Wightman, J. and Blackburn, J.) was delivered by—

BLACKBURN, J.-The question in these cases is, whether the rate in respect of the house and premises occupied as Colston's school is good.

It appears from the statement in the case, that the premises in question were, under (1) June 26, at the Sittings after Trinity Term. (2) 2 Burr. 1053.

(3) 1 B. & S. 71; s. c. 30 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 131.

(4) 10 Q.B. Rep. 884; s. c. 18 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) M.C. 194.

(5) 2 E. & B. 160; s. c. 22 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 129.

(6) 5 Ad. & E. 1; s. c. 5 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 113.

(7) 3 B. & Ad. 573; s. c. 1 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 50.

the sanction of the Court of Chancery, in 1859, conveyed to feoffees, upon trusts of a settlement made by Edward Colston, and subject to a scheme and order of the Court of Chancery for carrying out those trusts.

The effect of the settlement and scheme is, that the feoffees hold the premises in trust to permit the master, wardens, and assistants, and commonalty of the Merchants Venturers of Bristol (called in the case the trustees) to hold and enjoy the same for a residence for 100 poor boys, a schoolmaster, and necessary servants to inhabit in, and for a school to teach the boys: the trustees are to find and to provide for them board and lodging there, and ultimately to put them out as apprentices. Of these boys eighty are to be the sons of freemen of Bristol, or born within that city, twenty may be born in any other place, but a preference is to be given to those who are of kin to the founder. All must be poor, and all of the Church of England. The premises are used for this purpose. The present schoolmaster, Mr. Rowlatt, has been rated to the relief of the poor of the parish as occupier of that portion of the premises used as his residence, and the trustees have been rated as occupiers of the portion appropriated for the boys, servants, and schoolhouse and playground.

It does not appear, on the case, that the portion occupied by the schoolmaster is in excess of what would be reasonably appropriated to the accommodation of such a functionary.

No question is raised as to whether the nature of the schoolmaster's enjoyment is sufficiently exclusive to make him an occupier, or whether it is merely an enjoyment as lodger or inmate under the trustees. The only question raised is, whether the fact that the premises are held for the purpose of Colston's school prevents the occupation from being beneficial, so as to be rateable. We think, in both cases, the rate is good.

It is now settled, that where lands are occupied for public purposes, as for instance, as court-houses, prisons, and the like, so that to adopt the language of the Court in The Queen v. Wallingford Union (8)—the

(8) 10 Ad. & E. 269; s. c. 8 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) M.C. 89.

public is the occupier, "whilst those, who would otherwise have been the occupiers, are in the situation of public servants, receivers and managers for the public benefit, without any interest of their own," there can be no rate imposed; for the rate must be upon the occupier, and the occupier in such cases, the public, cannot be rated. But, in the present case, it cannot be said that the purpose for which these premises are occupied is public in any sense of the word. They are occupied for the purposes of a highly laudable charity, but one of a strictly private nature. The recipients of the charity would themselves be rateable if they had an exclusive occupation - The King v. Green (9). In The King v. St. Luke's Hospital (2), which was principally relied upon in the argument, the decision went on the ground that no person was shewn to be occupier of the premises in question. In the present case there is no such difficulty, as by the express terms of the settlement, as well as from the nature of the thing, the trustees are to be in occupation of the premises, for the purpose of carrying out the charity. It is true that Lord Mansfield, in the case referred to, uses language which has been understood to lay down the proposition, that where the occupants of land are bound to apply it for the benefit of a charity, they are not rateable; but this doctrine has not recently been adhered to. In the last case upon the subject, The Queen v. the Licensed Victuallers' Society (3), Hill, J. says, "I do not agree that there is no distinction between buildings used for charitable and buildings used for public purposes. In the former case there is an actual occupier; in the latter there is not." And Crompton, J. referred to several recent cases in which that distinction had been pointed out. The Court in that case acted upon that distinction, and we think we ought to follow that decision.

The consequence is, that in each case the order of Sessions must be quashed, and the names of the appellants restored.

Rate affirmed.

(9) 9 B. & C. 203.

Treasure Trove-Concealment—Innocent Finder-Evidence.

B. in ploughing in a field turned up some solid gold ornaments, for which no owner could be discovered. Supposing the articles to be brass, B. sold them to T. as brass, telling T. how he had found them. T. and W. afterwards, and together, sold them for gold for 500l., and after they had received the price, made repeated false statements that they had sold the metal as brass for a few shillings. Before the sale W. was present at a conversation which took place between B. and T. about the matter. An indictment against T. and W, after alleging the finding of the treasure by B, charged T. and W. that they unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly concealed the finding of the said treasure from our Lady the Queen: -Held, that the indictment was good, although it did not state that they concealed it fraudulently.

Held, further (Wightman, J. dubitante as to W.), that there was evidence sufficient for a jury to support the conviction against both W. and T.

after mentioned, to wit, on the 12th day of January, A.D. 1863, one William Butcher, a labourer in the employ of one Thomas Adams, farmer, of the parish of Mountfield, in the county of Sussex, while he, the said William Butcher, was ploughing in a certain field in the occupation of the said Thomas Adams, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, did find hidden in and under the ground and soil of the said field certain treasure of gold of the value of 500l. and upwards of lawful money of Great Britain, and which said treasure was of ancient time hidden as aforesaid, and the owner whereof at the time when the same was so hidden as aforesaid cannot now be known. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that our Lady the Queen, in right of her royal Crown and by virtue of her prerogative royal, is, and at the time of the said finding was, entitled to the said treasure so found as aforesaid. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that Silas Thomas, of the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, labourer, and Stephen Willett, of the parish of Ore, in the county aforesaid, labourer, from the said 12th of January in the year aforesaid to the time of taking this inquisition, did unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly conceal the finding of the said treasure from the knowledge of our Lady the Queen, against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.

Copy inquisition.-Rape of Hastings, Sussex, to wit.-An inquisition, indented, taken for our sovereign Lady the Queen, at the dwelling-house of R. Thompson, known by the name of The John's Cross Inn, in the parish of Mountfield, in the rape of Hastings, in the county of Sussex, on the 27th of March, A.D. 1863, before me, Nathaniel Polhill Kell, gentleman, coroner for the said rape, by virtue of my said office and of the statute in that case made and provided, upon the oaths of Isaac Mannington, James Crouch, Thomas Buss, Robert Fuller, Daniel Olney, John Pinyon, Edward Muggeridge, Thomas Badcock, James Moon, Richard Jempson, Joseph Jempson, George Hayward and Isaac Thompson, the several persons whose names are hereunder written

and seals affixed, good and lawful men of the said rape, duly chosen and here assembled before me, at the time and place aforesaid, and now here duly sworn and charged to inquire on the part of and for our Sovereign Lady the Queen of and concerning certain treasure lately found in the earth and soil of and in a certain field, situate and being in the said parish of Mountfield, and in the occupation of one Thomas Adams, of the said parish of Mountfield, farmer. And they, the said jurors, being sworn and charged upon their oath aforesaid to inquire on the part of our said Lady the Queen, of and concerning the said treasure as aforesaid, and having heard evidence upon oath produced to them, do, on their oath aforesaid, say, that on the 12th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1863, William Butcher, of the said parish of Mountfield, labourer, being employed by the said Thomas Adams in ploughing in the said field, did then and there find deposited, hidden and concealed in and under the earth and soil of the said field in the parish of Mountfield aforesaid, in the rape aforesaid, certain pieces of old gold of the weight of eleven pounds or thereabouts, and of the value of 530. and upwards sterling of current monies of this realm, and which said pieces of old gold were of ancient times deposited, hidden and concealed as aforesaid, and the owner or owners whereof cannot now be known. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further say that the said several pieces of old gold so deposited, hidden, concealed and found as aforesaid, before and at the time of so finding the same as aforesaid, were and from thence hitherto have been and still are the gold, money and property of our said Lady the now Queen. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further say that the said William Butcher and Silas Thomas, of the said parish of Mountfield, bricklayer, and Stephen Willett, of the town and port of Hastings, cab-proprietor, from the time of the said finding until and at the time of the taking of this inquisition at the said parish of Mountfield, in the said rape of Hastings, in the said county of Sussex, concealed the said finding of the said several pieces of old gold from me, the said coroner, and from our said

Lady the Queen, and did not make known the said finding to any person or persons whomsoever lawfully authorized or empowered to receive the said old gold or the information respecting the finding thereof on behalf of our said Lady the Queen. And the said jurors do further say, that the said William Butcher and Silas Thomas are now respectively in full life and living in the said parish of Mountfield, in the said rape of Hastings, and that the said Stephen Willett is also now in full life and living at the town and port of Hastings aforesaid. In witness whereof, as well I, the said Coroner, as the jurors aforesaid have to this inquisition set our hands and seals the day and place first above written.

Nath. P. Kell (L.S.), Coroner. (Here followed the names and seals of the jurors above mentioned.)

The evidence taken at the trial on the 22nd of July 1863, was as follows:

William Butcher.-In January last I was in the employ of Mr. Adams. He occupied a farm at M; I was ploughing there, in the barn field. My son James was with me. I ploughed up a long piece of metal; my share catched it out. As soon as I catched hold of it, it threw me out. I judge it was seventeen or eighteen inches deep. It was deeper than it had been ploughed before. Something stopped the plough: it was a long piece of metal, like brass; a trumpet on each end. It was doubled up like this[a coil of string]. The boy took it and laid it down. I looked down, and saw more in bottom of furrow, and found more some rings, and other pieces; two pieces, about this size; little rings and pieces, as if cut asunder; several pieces; altogether near twenty. The boy carried them to the bottom of the field. They remained till I left ploughing; then the boy carried them home. In the evening I shewed them to my wife and others: next morning Brett saw them; then to Thomas Adams I shewed them. Thomas, the prisoner, is a bricklayer at M. I passed where he was at work at the end of that week. I said, "Did you ever lay anything in this field you did not want any one to see?" He said, "No." I said "Because I have found a funny concern." He said he should like to see it. He came. He saw it, and said he thought it was some