Chad, Bart. v Tilsed
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1821 |
| Date | 01 January 1821 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 129 E.R. 1022
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 5 Moore, 185.
[403] chad, bart. . tilsed. Feb. 1, 1821. [S. C. 5 Moore, 185.] A grant of wreck was made by Hen. 2, to the proprietors of certain lands on the coast, and confirmed by Hen. 8. The proprietors of those lands having, 40 years ago, with a view to reclaim sea mud, run an embankment across a small bay, which was used to be left almost dry at low water, and having ever since asserted, without opposition, an exclusive right to the soil of the bay, though the bank was forced by tempest : Held, that such usage was evidence whence anterior usage might be presumed, which, coupled with the general terras of the grant, served to elucidate it, and to establiah the right to asserted. Trespass quare clausum fregit. Pleas, first, general issue; second, leave and licence ; third, that the locus in quo was part of Poole harbour ; fourth, that the locus in quo was an arm of the sea, and that the Defendant entered there to fish, as he lawfully might. The replication traversed these pleas : the rejoinder took issue on the replication. At the trial before Graham B., Dorchester Summer assizes, 1820, the Plaintiff, who was proprietor of Brownsea, an island of about 1000 acres, lying within the ambit of Poole harbour, deduced title to the island, including the locus in quo, from the Sturt family and the abbot of Cerne. A grant of wreck from Henry the Second, in the first year of his reign, 1154, to the abbot of Cerne, confirmed by inspeximus in the first year of Henry the Eighth, was proved ; also, a grant from Henry the Eighth, in the 36th year of his reign, to the Earl of Oxford, of the island of Brownsea, and a grant of the same year from the Earl of Oxford to Richard Duke of the same island, with wreck of the sea. At one extremity of the island is a bay of about 60 acres, called St. Andrew's Bay, which, at low water, becomes a great expanse of uncovered mud, intersected by a small inlet or gully only a few feet wide, called, in the language of the country, a lake. In this lake there is about three or four feet water at low tide, and about the same depth over the adjacent mud at higb tide. About forty years ago, Mr. Sturt, at a great expense, constructed an embankment all across the chord of St. Andrew's Bay, with a view to reclaim the mud and bring it into cultivation, and frequently made use of the seaweed, and mud and gravel, which was within the bank. The bay is about a mile and a half from Poole, in full [401] view of the town ; and no opposition was ever made to Mr. Sturt's undertaking. The bank was afterwards forced by a storm, and the sea again entered the space within, at high tide. Mr. Sturt, however, always treated it as his exclusive property; and no fisherman or other person was permitted to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamilton v The Attorney-General
...L. R. 8 Ch. 22. The Attorney-General v. Hanmer 27 L. J. Ch. 837. Dickens v. Shaw Hall on the Sea-shore, App. xlv. Chad v. TilsedENR 2 Br. & B. 403. The Duke of Beaufort v. The Mayor of SwanseaENR 3 Exch. 413. Lord Donegall v. Lord TemplemoreUNK 9 Ir. C. L. R. 374. In re the Belfast Dock Act......
-
Bristow v Cormican
...v. WilliamsENR 2 M. & W. 326. Taylor v. Parry 1 M. & Gr. 604. Parmenter v. The Attorney-GeneralENR 1 Dow P. C. 316. Chad v. TilsedENR 2 Br. & B. 403. Rogers v. AllenENR 1 Campb. 309. The Queen v. East Mark Tything 11 Q. B. 877. Hudson v. M'KraeENR 4 B. & S. 307. Hargreaves v. DiddamsELR L. ......
-
The Belfast Dock Act, 1854, and The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. v ex parte The Earl of Ranfurly
...L. R. 624. Roe v. LidwellUNKUNK 9 Ir. C. L. R. 184; 11 Ir. C. L. R. 320. Attorney General v. Hanmer 4 Jur. N. S. 751. Chad v. TilsedENR 2 Br. & B. 403. Malcolmson v. Oƒ€™DeaENR 10 H. L. C. 603. Manning v. Fitzgerald 29 L. J. N. S. Ex. 24. Oƒ€™Neill v. AllenUN......
-
Healy v Thorne
...of Beaufort v. SwanseaENR 3 Ex. 413. Attorney-General v. JonesENR 2 H. & C. 347. Calmady v. RoweENR 6 C. B. 861, 880. Chad v. TilsedENR 2 Br. & B. 403. Howe v. Stawell Alc. & Nap. 348. Patent from the Crown — Islands — User. Von. IV.] COMMON LAW SERIES. A patent of James I. granted the Prio......