Attorney General v Richards
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1817 |
| Date | 01 January 1817 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 145 E.R. 980
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER
[603] the attorn by general v. richards.-Where a nuisance and purpresturc in a harbour are committed, an information in equity lies to abate it. This information stated, that by the royal prerogative, tlio sea and sea-coasts, as far as the sea flows and reflows, between the high and low water-marks, and all the ports and havens of the kingdom, belong to his Majesty, and ought to be preserved for the use of hia Majesty's vessels, and others, and that his Majesty has the right of superintendeucy over them, for their preservation. It then stated, that the defendants, in 1784, erected a wharf or key, two docks, and other buildings, between high and low water-mark, in Portsmouth harbour, adjoining to Gosport, so as both to prevent the boats and vessels from sailing over that spot, or mooring there; and also to endanger further damage to the harbour, by preventing the free current of the water to carry oft' the mud. The information therefore prayed, thtit the defendants might be restrained from making any further erections, that those made might be abated, and the harbour restored to its ancient situation. The defendants claimed to hold the soil of the place in question, under letters-patent, 14th July, 4 Ch. I. These letters-patent recited, that a commission had issued to the sheriff of Hampshire, and other persons, to examine all the mud-banks and sea-marshes, within a certain district, on the coast; and, by a legal inquest, to inquire and report, whether any, and what part of them, might be reco-[604]-vered from the sea, without injury to any person. They made a return, certifying, that certain mud-lands, and lands covered with the sea, around the town of Gosport, might be recovered from the sea, to the great benefit of the nation, and without injury or damage to any person. The letters-patent on the foot of this return, and in consideration of the services of the grantees, and of the money to be by them expended in recovering from the sea the lands granted ; of the special favour, certain knowledge, and mere motion of the King, did grant to Mary Wandesford and William Wandes-ford certain mud-lands, and lands (Overflown with the sea, (among others, certain lands overflown with the sea, on each side of Gosport, and there fully described,) and tdso discharged the same from all claim of tithes from the Crown, during seven years from the date of the lands being recovered and embanked from the sea, rendering a rent of 4d. per acre for every acre recovered till the year IG.'iO, and from that period, the rent of Is. Two of the defendants also pleaded possession of the place in question for more than sixty years. It was , much disputed, upon the evidence, whether the place in question was included within the grant, or not'? The defendants did not produce the conveyances, and the deduction of title from the Waridesfords, to the persons from whom they derived immediately their claim. They only produced the conveyance of this parcel of mud-land to themselves, by persons stated in the conveyance to be entitled under the letters-patent. [606] It was admitted, that the defendants, or those under whom they claimed, had had possession of a piece of mud-land adjoining to the piece in question, for upwards of sixty years. The ground in question had never been recovered from the sea., till the erections complained of by the bill, and which were made after notice of the intention to dispute the right; but the defendants had had possession, by keeping floats of timber moored there, for some time before. It was proved, that the embankment was highly prejudicial and dangerous to the harbour, anjd that it was peculiarly hurtful to the town of Gosport, by preventing boats from coming immediately up to the town, on that side, as formerly. This case was argued during the term by The Attorney General and Solicitor General, Alexander, Campbell, and Percival, for the Crown. The prima facie right of the Crown to all ports and arms of the sea, and to the soil thereof, is clearly established. The nature of that right is explained by Lord Hale, in his treatises De Jure Maria and De Portibus Maris*. It is there * Hee Mr. Margrave's Law Tracts. 2ANST.M6. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. EUCHARDS 981 shewn...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King against Tindall and Others
...36). The Attorney-General v. Burridge (10 Price, 350). The Attorney-General v. Parmeter (10 Price, 378). The Attorney-General v. Richards (2 Anstr. 603). Rex v. Lord Grosvenor (2 Stark. 511). Rex v. Russell (6 B. & 0. 566). Rex v. Ward (4 A. & E. 384). Rex v. Trafford (1 B. & Ad. 874). Tra/......
-
Attorney General v The Corporation of London and Others
...[18] Master's office, in no way determines the contrary. Parmeter v. The Attorney-General (1 Dow, 316), The Attwney-General v. Richards (2 Anst. 603), The Attorney-General for the Duchy of Lancaster v. Lord Derby (Wightwick, 232). Again, that principle is applicable only to informations of ......
-
Attorney General v The Corporation of London
...(10 Price, 350), Attorney-General v. Parmeter (Ibid. 378), Attorney-General v. Johnson (2 Wilson, C. C. 87), Attorney-General v. Richards (2 Anst. 603). Lastly, the whole equity jurisdiction of the Exchequer was transferred to this Court by the 5 Viet. c. 5, which transfers all equitable ju......
-
Doe, d. THE RIGHT HON. GEORGE HAMILTON MARQUIS of DONEGAL, v RIGHT HON. HENRY SPENCER BARON TEMPLEMORE
...Bedle v. Beard 12 Co. 5. Gibson v. Clark 1 Jac. & Wal. 159. Roe d. Johnson v. IrelandENR 11 East, 280. Attorney-General v. RichardsENR 2 Anst. 603. Attorney-General v. ParmeterENR 10 Price, 410. Daniel v. NorthENR 11 East, 374. Barker v. RichardsonENR 4 B. & Ald. 579. Bright v. Walker 1 Cr.......
-
Royal Demesne
...to the Prince of Wales v St Aubyn (1811) Wight 167, 145 ER 1215. 18 (1771) 5 Burr 2764, 98 ER 451. 19 Attorney-General v Richards (1794) 2 Anst 603, 145 ER 980. 20 See Attorney-General v Parmeter (1811) 10 Price 378, 147 ER 345; London Corporation v Attorney-General (1848) I HL Cas 440, 9 E......
-
Table of Cases
...Parmeter (1811) 10 Price 378, 147 ER 345 24.4 A-G v Parsons [1956] AC 421, [1956] 2 WLR 153, [1956] 1 All ER 65, HL 7.7 A-G v Richards (1794) 2 Anst 603, 145 ER 980 24.4 A-G v Sitwell (1835) 1 Y & C Ex 559, 160 ER 228 20.2 A-G v Trustees of the British Museum [1903] 2 Ch 598, 88 LT 858 16.5......