Charles Frederick, Baron De Rutzen, and Mary Dorothea, his Wife, against Lloyd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 111 E.R. 1238
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 6 N. & M. 776; 5 L. J. K. B. 202. Distinguished, Ellis v. Bridgnorth Corporation, 1863, 15 C. B. N. S. 78. See Gingell v. Stepney Borough Council, (1906) 2 K. B. 468; (1908) 1 K. B. 115; (1909) A. C. 245.
charles frederick, baron de rutzen, and mary dorothea, his Wife, against lloyd. 1836. In case, by the lord of a manor, for disturbance of a market, if the lord prove a market immemorially holden in certain places within the manor, it is not a necessary legal inference (no grant being produced) that the market was granted to be holden in those places only ; but a jury may presume, from circumstances, that the market was granted to be holden in any convenient place within the manor. Plaintiff obtained a verdict, and a new trial was granted on account of the admission of improper evidence. Plaintiff drew up the rule for the nevr trial, and served it on defendant, who informed plaintiff that he would not avail himself of the rule. The Court ordered that the postea, should be delivered to plaintiff, and that he should have his costs of the trial. But the Court allowed neither party the costs of the rule for a new trial, or of the rule for giving the postea and costs to the plaintiff. [S. C. 6 N. & M. 776; 5 L. J. K. B. 202. Distinguished, Ellis v. Bridgnorth Corporation, 1863, 15 C. B. N. S. 78. See Gingell v. Stepney Borough Council, [1906] 2 K. B. 468: [1908] 1 K. B. 115; [1909] A. C. 245.] Case for disturbance of the plaintiffs' market at Narberth, in Pembrokeshire, by setting up another market. Plea, the general issue. On the trial before Gumey B., at the Pembrokeshire Spring Assizes, 1834, a verdict was found for the plaintiffs, damages Is., but leave reserved to move to enter a nonsuit. In the ensuing term a rule nisi was obtained, according to the leave reserved, upon grounds which will appear by the judgment of the Court. A rule was also obtained to shew cause why (J) See Loader v. Thomas, 1 Cro. & J. 54. (c) See the next case. BAD. tcE.ni. DE RUTZBN V. LLOYD 1239 there should not be a new trial, upon [457J several points, and, among others, upon that taken in De Rutzen v. Farr (4 A. & E. 53), the admission of improper evidence; and upon that ground the rule for a new trial in the present case was made absolute. On the rule for entering a nonsuit, cause was shewn in last Hilary term, January 23d, by Sir John Campbell, Attorney-General, Cresswell, and Evans, and the rule was supported by John Wilson and E. V. Williams (b). The case (as regards the point decided) is so fully discussed in the judgment of the Court, that a detail of the arguments is considered unnecessary. Lord Denman C.J. in this term (May 23d) delivered the judgment of the Court. In this case the Court had directed a rule absolute for a new trial upon a point of evidence, which had been considered in the case of De Mulzen v, Farr (4 A. & E. 53). The counsel for the defendant, however, upon points not decided in that case, have pressed for a nonsuit: it has, therefore, now become necessary to decide them. It appeared upon the trial that the legal estate in the market in question was not in the plaintiffs ; and it was alleged that the legal estate was not deduced to the trustees, upon which it was contended that they alone could have maintained the action, and that, on the present evidence, it would have failed even if brought in their names, on account of the defect in the proof of their title. As a preliminary answer to these objections, it was urged that this was only a possessory action, in which proof of title was superfluous : and that no failure to de-[458]-duce a regular title from the Crown ought to defeat their right to recover by reason of their possession. The counsel for the defendant, in reply, did not dispute the general truth of the first of these propositions, but denied that it was applicable under the particular circumstances of the case : and the Court took time to consider of its judgment, for the purpose of looking into the evidence as to those particular circumstances, and the deduction of the title; and after such examination we are of opinion that the rule for entering a nonsuit cannot be made absolute. It appeared that the Narberth market, till the year 1832, had been held in certain places within the town and manor, some descriptions of articles being usually exposed to sale in the streets, but the greater number within and around a market house, standing upon the soil of the defendant; and that the plaintiffs and those whom they represent had received the market tolls...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coryton and Another v Lithebye
...only ; but a jury may presume, from circumstances, that the market was granted to be holdeu in any convenient place within the manor. 5 A. & E. 456, De Rutzen v. Lloyd. 6 N. & M. 776, S. C. But where B., being entitled to a market in the manor of K., which was held in the public street on B......
-
Yard v Ford
...W. 245, Cowling v. Hiffginson. 5 Bing. N. C. 622, Higham v. EabeU. 1 Scott, 827, S. C. 11 A. & E. 759, 770, 771, Allan v. Gomme. See also 5 A. & E. 456, 460, 461, De Rutzen v. Lloyd. 6 N. & M. 776. S. C. ante, Vol. II. p. 114, note (I).-By the new rules of pleading H. T. 4 W. 4, V. all righ......
-
Ellis v the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Bridfnorth
...jv.wm ((jr.), pi. 2, Comyns's Digest, Action upon the Caw for a Nuisance (A.), 8, Bl/isseM v. [[curt, Willes, 503, De, Utttzen v. Lloyd, 5 Ad. & E. 456, 6 N. & M. 770, Bridgland v. Chapter, 5 M. & W. 375, Pirn v. CareU, 6 M. & W. 234. Cur. adv. vult. [76] williams, J., delivered the judgmen......
-
Midleton v Power
...DIVISION. (1883. No. 5370.) LORD MIDLETON and POWER AND OTHERS. Curwen v. SalkeldENR 3 East. 538. De Rutzen v. Lloyd 5 A. & E. 456. smid v. The Great Eastern Railway Co.ELR 25 Ch. Div. 511, 550; 9 App. Cas. 927. In re the Islington Market Bill 3 Cl. & F. 513. The Corporation of Cork v. Shin......