Bertie, Clerk, against Beamount
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 June 1812 |
| Date | 01 June 1812 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 1001
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
[33] bektie, Clerk, against beaumont, Monday, June 1st, 1812. A servant put into the occupation of a cottage, with less wages on that account, does not occupy it as a tenant, but the master may properly declare on it as his own occupation in an action on the case for a disturbance of a right of way over the defendant's close to such cottage. And it matters not that the cottage was divided into two parts, one of which only was in the occupation of such servant, the other being occupied by a tenant paying rent. This was an action on the case for an obstruction to a private right of way, in which the plaintiff declared that at the time of the grievance on the 1st of January 1808 he was lawfully possessed of and occupying a certain messuage and two acres of land, with the appurtenances, in the parish of Buckland, in the county of Surrey; and then claimed, in respect of such his own occupation, a certain way for himself and his servants over a certain close of the defendant to the said messuage and land, &c.; and alleged an obstruction to the said way by the defendant. At the trial before the Lord Chief Baron, in Surrey, the plaintiff called a witness of the name of Howell, who stated himself to be a labourer in the plaintiff's service, and described the cottage, in respect of which the right of way was claimed, as divided into two parts; the one occupied by himself for the last 12 years; the other by a Mrs. Dove, who had occupied her portion for some years past at an annual rent of 50s. That he paid no rent, but had less wages by 51. a-year, on account of his paying no rent in money: and was only a weekly servant. That one Flint who lived there before him, had paid 51. a-year for it. That Mrs. Dove was tenant to a Mr. Bish before the plaintiff bought the cottage, and had continued to live in it since. It was thereupon objected that such occupation by Howell was not the occupation of the plaintiff, as alleged in the declaration, but in effect as a tenant: and his Lordship, considering the occupation of one portion of [34] the cottage by Mrs. Dove to be clearly in the character of tenant; and that the occupation of the other part by Howell was in effect at a like rent of 51., (a) Le Blanc, J. was absent on a special commission at Lancaster, and did not come into Court till the 5th of June. K. B. xxxiil-32* 1002 WAKE V. TINKLER 16 EAST, 35. though not actually...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
William Hughes v Overseers of the Parish of Chatham
...Inhabitants of South Kilvington (3 G. & D. 157), E. v. The Inhabitants of Snape (6 A. & E. 278) are also in point. In Bertie v. Beaumont (16 East, 33), it was held that a servant, occupying a cottage, with less wages on that account, did not occupy as tenant, but that the master might prope......
-
Wheeler against Montefiore, Carroll, and Crooke
...652). [139] The occupation of Franks here was like an occupation by a servant, which is the occupation of the master; Bertie v. Beaumont (16 East, 33). In Com. Dig. Trespass (B, 2), it is said (6), "if a stranger does a trespass to a lessee at will, which prejudices the land, the lessor may......
-
Browne v Marquis of Sligo
...BROWNE and MARQUIS OF SLIGO. Bertie v. BeaumanENR 16 East, 33. Rex v. Kelstern 5 M. & Sel. 136. Rex v. ThursterENR 3 M. & S. 276. Rex v. BardwellENR 2 B. & C. 161. Hughes v. Overseers of ChathamUNK 5 M. & G. 54. Rex v. Snape 6 A. & E. 278. Westmeath v. Hogg 3 Ir. Law Rep. 27. Parker v. Tasw......
-
Kenna v Nugent
...App., Overseers of Chatham, Resp.UNK 5 M. & G. 77. Grantham v. Hawley Hubbard, 132. Davis v. HardyENR 6 B. & C. 225. Bertie v. BeaumontENR 16 East, 33. Nowlan v. AblettUNK 5 Tyrw. 709. White v. BayleyENR 10 C. B. (N. S.) 227. O'Connor v. Tyndall 2 Jones, 20. Mesne rates — Judgment by defaul......