See also:DEODAND (See also:Lat. Deo dandum, that which is to be given to See also:God)
, in See also:English See also:law, was a See also:personal See also:chattel (any See also:animal or thing) which, on See also:account of its having caused the See also:death of a human being, was forfeited to the See also:- KING
- KING (O. Eng. cyning, abbreviated into cyng, cing; cf. O. H. G. chun- kuning, chun- kunig, M.H.G. kiinic, kiinec, kiinc, Mod. Ger. Konig, O. Norse konungr, kongr, Swed. konung, kung)
- KING [OF OCKHAM], PETER KING, 1ST BARON (1669-1734)
- KING, CHARLES WILLIAM (1818-1888)
- KING, CLARENCE (1842–1901)
- KING, EDWARD (1612–1637)
- KING, EDWARD (1829–1910)
- KING, HENRY (1591-1669)
- KING, RUFUS (1755–1827)
- KING, THOMAS (1730–1805)
- KING, WILLIAM (1650-1729)
- KING, WILLIAM (1663–1712)
king for pious uses
.
See also:Blackstone, while tracing in the See also:custom an expiatory See also:design, alludes to analogous Jewish and See also:Greek See also:laws,' which required that what occasions a See also:man's death should be destroyed
.
In such usages the notion of the See also:punishment of an animal or thing, or of its being morally affected from having caused the death of a man, seems to be implied
.
The See also:forfeiture of the offending See also:instrument in no way depends on the See also:guilt of the owner
.
This imputation of guilt to inanimate See also:objects or to the See also:lower animals is not inconsistent with what we know of the ideas of uncivilized races
.
In English law, deodands came to be regarded as See also:mere forfeitures to the king, and' the rules on which they depended were not easily explained by any See also:key in the See also:possession of the old commentators
.
The law distinguished, for instance, between a thing in See also:motion and a thing See also:standing still
.
If a See also:horse or other animal in motion killed a See also:person, whether See also:infant or adult, or if a See also:cart ran over him, it was forfeited as a See also:deodand
.
On the other See also:hand, if death were caused by falling from a cart or a horse at See also:rest, the law made the chattel a deodand if the person killed were an adult, but not if he were below the years of discretion
.
Blackstone accounts for the greater severity against things in motion by saying that in such cases the owner is more usually at See also:fault, an explanation which is doubtful in point of fact, and would certainly not account for other instances of the same tendency
.
Thus, where a man's death is caused by a thing not in motion, that See also:part only which is the immediate cause is forfeited, as " if a man be climbing up the See also:wheel of a cart, and is killed by falling from it, the wheel alone is a deodand"; whereas, if the cart were in motion, not only the wheel but all that moves along with it (as the cart and the loading) are forfeited
.
A similar distinction is to be found in See also:Britton
.
Where a man is killed by a See also:vessel at rest the See also:cargo is not deodand; where the vessel is under See also:sail, See also:hull and cargo are both deodand
.
For the distinction between the death of a See also:child and the death of an adult Blackstone accounts by suggesting that the child " was presumed incapable of actual See also:sin, and therefore needed no deodand to See also:purchase propitiatory masses; but every adult who died in actual sin stood in need of such See also:atonement, according to the humane superstition of the founders of the English law." See also:Sir See also:Matthew See also:Hale's explanation was that the child could not take care of himself, whereon Blackstone asks why the owner should See also:save his forfeiture on account of the imbecility of the child, which ought to have been an additional See also:reason for caution
.
The finding of a See also:jury was necessary to constitute a deodand, and the investigation of the value of the instrument by which death was caused occupied an important See also:place among the provisions of See also:early English criminal law
.
It became a necessary part of an See also:indictment to See also:state the nature and value of the weapon employed —as, that the stroke was given by a certain penknife, of the value of sixpence—so that the king might have his deodand
.
Accidents on the high seas did not cause forfeiture, being beyond the domain of the See also:common law; but it would appear that in the See also:case of See also:ships in fresh See also:water the law held See also:good
.
The king might See also:- GRANT (from A.-Fr. graunter, O. Fr. greanter for creanter, popular Lat. creantare, for credentare, to entrust, Lat. credere, to believe, trust)
- GRANT, ANNE (1755-1838)
- GRANT, CHARLES (1746-1823)
- GRANT, GEORGE MONRO (1835–1902)
- GRANT, JAMES (1822–1887)
- GRANT, JAMES AUGUSTUS (1827–1892)
- GRANT, ROBERT (1814-1892)
- GRANT, SIR ALEXANDER
- GRANT, SIR FRANCIS (1803-1878)
- GRANT, SIR JAMES HOPE (1808–1895)
- GRANT, SIR PATRICK (1804-1895)
- GRANT, U
- GRANT, ULYSSES SIMPSON (1822-1885)
grant his right to deodands to another
.
In later times these forfeitures became extremely unpopular; and juries, with the connivance of See also:judges, found deodands of trifling value, so as to defeat the inequitable claim
.
At last, by an See also:act of 1846 they were abolished, the date noticeably coinciding with the introduction of See also:railways and See also:modern See also:steam-engines
.
End of Article: