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
