Attorney General v Chambers
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 July 1849 |
| Date | 18 July 1849 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 1020
ROLLS COURT
[159] the attorney-general v. chambers. July 18, 1849. Order made, on motion, for an inspection of coal mines. The object of the information was to establish the right of the Crown to coal mines under the seashore, and which, it was alleged, had been worked by the Defendants by means of shafts from the adjoining lands. Mr. Turner and Mr. Maule now moved for liberty for the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to enter, inspect, and examine the coal mines of the Defendants, and to take all necessary steps for enabling them to make a perfect and complete survey and plan of the workings of the mines, so far as they might extend under the seashore, and an estimate of the quantity of coal raised underneath the shore. They cited Kynaaton v. The East India Company (3 Swan. 248), The East India Company t. Kynaston (3 Bli. (O. S.) 153), The Earl of Lonsdale v. Curwen (Ibid. 168), Walker v. Fletcher (Ibid. 172), and a case of Lewis v. James, before Vice-Chancellor Wigram. Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Goldsmith, for the Defendants. the master of the rolls [Lord Langdale], said he had made a similar order in Maden v. Feevers (reported, on other points, 5 Beavan, 503, and 7 Beavan, 489), and granted the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bennet against Griffiths and Another
...Procedure Act, 1854, empowers the Judge to make the order upon such terms as he may direct. [Blackburn J. In Attorney General v. Chambers (12 Beav. 159) the Master of the Rolls made an order that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests should have liberty to enter, inspect and examine the co......
-
Ennor v Barwell
...[530] v. Kynaston (3 Bligh, 153); Earl of Lonsdale v. Curwen (Ibid. 168); Ifalker v. Fletcher (Ibid. 172); Attorneti-General v. Chambers (12 Beav. 159); Benni.it v. f-Hiitehouse (28 Beav. 119). The Vice-Chancellor made the following order:-"Order that the witnesses and agents of the Plainti......
-
Bennitt v Whitehouse
...by refusing an inspection. He relied on The East India Company v. Kynaston (3 Bligh, O. S. 153); The Attorney-General v. Cha-mberis (12 Beav. 159); Kynaston v. The East India Company (3 Swanst. 248). 312 BENNITT V. WHITEHOUSE as BEAV. 121. Mr. Bagshawe and Mr. Morris, contra. The Plaintiff ......