punished with one hundred blows (H. A. H. L.

Supp. vol. VII. p. 31).

Treasure-Trove.

The term seems to have a wider signification than in English law, and includes (with a few exceptions noticed infra) all lost or abandoned property found in or upon the earth.

In regard of property found by and on the wayside the correct course is to deliver up the find within a given time to the local magistrate. If the property is public, it retained if the property is retained for a specified time

will be definitely private, it will be and if the owner

appears within the period, half the property will be returned to him, and half may be retained by the finder. If the owner does not appear within the given period, the property will go in toto to the finder.

The above rules also apply to property found in the ground, with the exception of ancient utensils, bells, official seals, and such like which must within a given period be delivered to the Authorities (v. also H. A. H. L. vol. X. P. 57).

CHAPTER XV

OFFENCES AGAINST JUSTICE

SECTION I GENERAL CONSIDERATION

GENERAL CONSIDERATION

From one view, offences against Justice are in China in their very essence offences against the State. From the legal point of view, however, the peculiar element in all these offences is detriment (with a spice of rash contempt involved) to the law per se, and not to the State nor to the Individual. Nevertheless it may easily happen that an offence distinctly coming within this topic may be ranged and punished under a clause of greater stringency than at first sight applies so contempt of Court might conceivably be considered treasonable or seditious. There is, in

fact, a good deal of strained construction in connection with this portion of the law.

Offences against Justice, as tending to shake confidence in the law are, on the whole, viewed with a very natural jealous severity "so as "to give confidence in the law"

and "to make manifest its majesty"πER. The offences enumerated herein are mostly familiar to an English reader in this connection, with one striking exception false accusation. The last-mentioned offence (q. v.) forms in many respects a most important consideration, and if the Chinese mode of treatment be somewhat singular and rather involved, it is at least remarkably comprehensive. Contempt of Court and resisting arrest are other offences in this connection exhibiting the constant desire to draw distinctions.

This is of two distinct varieties, including both the contemning or disregard of the orders of a judge, styled wei chih, and the insulting a judge's person, styled chia chih 挾制 v. fin however.

The former offence is comparatively trivial, and is ordinarily punished with one hundred blows; the latter offence is more heinous, and is ordinarily visited with military servitude.

Such is the legal definition and explanation thereof. It is however more correct to consider the definition of as a general disregard 違制 of authority, and many miscellaneous offences are included under this head: e. g., to pawn a commission (H. A. H. L. Supp. vol. IV. p. 13): to trespass on the salt pans contrary to regulations and in defiance of Imperial Proclamation the defiance entailing an addition to the ordinary punishment (H. A. H. L. Supp. vol. IV. p. 3): to buy or sell paddy in Peking to anyone but

those living there (H. A. H. L. Supp. vol. IV. p. 17): to go to sea from any but a regular port (H. A. H. L. Supp. vol. IV. p. 72): to

buy contraband (H.

A. H. L. Supp. vol. IV. p. 55): to shut the city gates (H. A. H. L. Supp. vol. IV. p. 45): to draw a petition of appeal to the Throne (H. A. H. L. Supp. vol. IV. p. 43): to sell tracts (H. A. H. L. Supp. vol. IV. p. 38): to fail to destroy gambling apparatus, dice, cards, etc., (H. A. H. L. Supp. vol. XIV. p. 37): to make suggestions to an examiner (H. A. H. L. Supp. vol. XIV. p. 38).

The other variety applies not only to an insult paid to the person of a judge in his legal capacity, but also to insults paid to the person of those who are employed by or in Courts of Justice and during the discharge of their legal duties in short insults paid to

anyone in whom the majesty of the Law may be supposed in some measure to reside. The offences under this head are marked by a far greater similarity than is the case with that just noticed, the general element of violence or disturbance being present. So it is an offence