portunity of shewing his innocence, together with the circumstance of less weight having been of late years attached to the verdict of a coroner's jury than antiently, it was considered as entitled to (a), appear to justify the assertion, that at the present day a party might legally traverse the finding of the coroner's inquest, in order to obviate the consequences of the flight of which he is accused (b). But this matter is not of much practical importance, as the flight is never found.

On an outlawry, whether in a criminal or civil case, the party forfeits his personal property to the Crown (c). In this case, however, the forfeiture may be obviated by a reversal of the award of the exigent, either for error in fact or law (d). But it seems, that if a person accused even of petit larceny only, makes default till the award of the exigent, his goods are forfeited, and though he is entitled to them on a reversal of the outlawry, yet he cannot claim a return of them, merely because he is acquitted at the trial of the offence for which he is indicted (e).

Every thing which comes within the description of personal property is forfeited, without office found, in the above instances; and even choses in action or debts, whether due on specialty or simple contract, and whether acquired before or after the attainder (f). And, it seems, that trusts of personalty stand in this respect on the same footing as trusts of realty (g). It is, however, clear, that such property as the offender holds as executor or administrator, is not forfeitable to the Crown (h). Where the party is joint obligee of a bond with another, it seems, the King shall have the whole (i), because the demand is indivisible. And, on the same ground, if another were also interested in a horse or ox with the defendant, the King shall still have the whole (k).

We have already seen, that lands are only forfeited upon at

tainder; personalty is, however, forfeited upon the offender's being convicted, or, in other words, found guilty by the jury (a); and although in oùtlawries for treason, or felony, lands are for feited only by the judgment, yet the personal property of the offender is forfeited, by his being first put in the exigent without staying till he is quinto exactus, or finally outlawed; for the secreting himself so long from justice is construed a flight in i law (b).

There is a further material distinction between the forfeit-: ure of real and personal property; for the forfeiture of the former has relation to the time when the offence was committed, so as to avoid all subsequent sales and incumbrances; but the forfeiture of personalty has no relation backwards, so that those only which the offender had at the time of the conviction shall be forfeited; and, therefore, a traitor or felon may sell any of his personal property for the sustenance of himself and family, between the fact and conviction (c). And in the great prisage case, in Bulstrode's Reports (d), this point is put, "A termor is distrained for rent behind; afterwards he is attainted for felony, done before the distress taken; Per Curiam. "The King shall not have this distress as a forfeiture, unless he do satisfy the party who distrained, for this was lawfully taken tempore captionis." If, however, the property be parted with collusively, and in order to defraud the King, his Majesty will be entitled to it (e).

As laid down in a recent work (ƒ), " By the 1 Rich. 3. c. 3. the sheriff and other officers are precluded from seizing the goods of a party arrested or imprisoned for treason, or felony, until his attainder or conviction. This Act is said to be only in affirmance of the common law (g), and extends to money as well as specific chattels (h). It seems, however, that the goods may be appraised, or inventoried, after indictment found, in order that no sequestration or collusive transfer may defeat

the Crown of the forfeiture (a). This, indeed, does not extend to a removal; and it is clear, as just observed, that the party indicted may sell any of them for his support in prison, or that of his family, or to assist him in preparing for his defence on the trial (b). But a fraudulent conveyance, without consideration, as a bill of sale to a felon's son, will be void; because, as the owner might, if acquitted, have recovered them back himself, so, if convicted, the transfer will not avail against his Majesty (c). And though the property cannot be touched before, it is certain that it may be seized as soon as the forfeiture is completed (d). It seems, too, the whole township is answerable to the King for their production, and are, therefore, empowered to seize them wherever they may be conveyed (e). And, at common law, they could exonerate themselves from responsibility, by shewing that they delivered the goods to an individual by whom they were secreted (f). But by the 31 Edw. 3. c. 3. they are admitted to excuse themselves, by throwing the blame on the party actually culpable. The Crown seems to take them free from liability to the previous debts of the convict, though it should seem that, in some cases, the Crown will allow the creditors to reap benefit from them (g)."

The King's pardon will effectually remit and prevent such forfeitures as accrue to the Crown, but not vested escheats to a subject who may be lord of the fee. The power of the Crown to regrant forfeitures, &c. will be mentioned in the next section, on escheats (h).

To consider the various cases in which the right of the Crown to goods forfeited for breaches of the revenue law, obtains, would lead one into a detail of the revenue laws; a subject principally founded on the positive enactments of the

(a) 1 Hale, 367. 3 Inst. 228. Hawk. b. 2. c. 49. s. 35. Bro. Abr. Forfeiture, 10. Burn's J. Forfeiture, J. Williams's J. Seizure of Felon's Goods.

(b) 4 Bla. Com. 387, 8. 8 Co. 171. Skin. 357, 8. 1 Hale, 361. Hawk. b. 2. c. 49. s. 33. Com. Dig. Justices, Z. Bac. Ab. Forfeiture, E. Williams's J. Seizure of Felon's Goods. (c) Ibid.

legislature. It may, however, be remarked, that when forfeitures of this description are incurred, they accrue instantly to the Crown, and will not be divested by a subsequent seizure of the same article, as a droit of admiralty, or otherwise (a); though, as the Admiralty Court proceeds in rem, a judicial sale of a vessel, &c. as a derelict, without fraud, is available against the Crown's right of seizure for a previous forfeiture under the revenue laws; although the Crown was not a party to the proceeding in the Admiralty Court, other than by the King's Procurator-General claiming the vessel as an Admiralty droit; and although no decision of droit, or no droit, was awarded, and the sale took place, pendente lite, under an interlocutory order (b).

4. We may mention Escheats as constituting another, and by no means an unimportant part, of the ordinary and inherent revenue of the Crown.

As before observed, the doctrine of escheats is a consequence of tenure in chivalry, according to the antient feudal system. Escheat is (c) the determination of the tenure, or dissolution of the mutual bond between the lord and tenant, from the extinction of the blood of the latter, by either natural or civil means; if he died without heirs of his blood, or if his blood was corrupted and stained by commission of treason or felony, whereby every inheritable quality was entirely blotted out and abolished. In such cases the land escheated, or fell back, to the lord of the fee; that is, the tenure was determined by breach of the original condition expressed or implied in the feudal donation. In the one case, there were no heirs subsisting of the blood of the first feudatory or purchaser, to which heirs alone the grant of the feud extended; in the other, the tenant by perpetrating an atrocious crime, shewed that he was no longer to be trusted as a vassal, having forgotten his duty as a subject, and therefore forfeited his feud, which he held under the implied condition that he should not be a traitor or a felon. The consequence of which in both cases was, that the gift being determined, resulted back to the lord who gave

(a) Parker, 273. Observations on this case, 3 Price, 134..

(b) 3 Price, 97.

(c) 2 Bla. Com. 72. Co. Lit. 13.

it (a). It is in this point of view that Bracton (b) terms an escheat a species of reversion.

Wherever lands escheat, they become the property of the lord of the seignory, or person of whom they were held. Now

the statute 12 Cha. 2. s. 24. for changing all the antient tenures into free and common socage, the rents and services (among which fealty is occasionally due) are preserved to the lord; of him therefore the lands are still holden, and to him they may escheat. But if all these badges of tenure have been neglected to be preserved, and it be no longer known of whom the lands are mediately holden; then the King, as the great and chief lord, shall have them by escheat; for to him fealty belongs, and of him they are certainly holden by presumption of law, and without the necessity of proof (c). At the present day therefore the King is almost universally though not necessarily the lord of the seignory, and as such entitled on the escheat of inheritances. The case of a copyhold, which escheats to the lord of the manor, as the person of whom they were held, seems to form the only general exception. It will not therefore be a digression to enter rather fully into the law of escheats.

An escheat may, says Lord Coke (d), happen 1st, aut per defectum sanguinis (that is) for the default of an heir; 2dly, aut per defectum tenentis.

1. To state fully all the particular instances in which an escheat may occur, in consequence of a party dying without relations who can inherit, it would be necessary to enter into the principles and niceties of the law of descents. It will suffice to observe in this place, that escheats arising from a deficiency of blood, whereby the descent is at an end, take place, 1st, where the tenant dies without any relations on the part of any of his