Doe D. Legh v Roe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1841 |
| Date | 01 January 1841 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 1169
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 11 L. J. Ex. 57. Applied, Dillon v. Balfour, 1871, 20 L. R. Ir. 600.
dob d. lbgh v. roe.(o) Exch. of Pleas. 1841.-The stat. 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 69, has not the effect of vesting in the Board of Ordnance any of the ancient hereditary possessions of the Crown.-The Board of Ordnance, in the year 1823, put their servant W. into possession of a house and land adjoining Hurst Castle, which castle has been, from the time of Henry VIII., a possession of the Crown of England. An action of ejection having been brought to recover possession of this house and land, and the declaration served on W. and on the Board of Ordnance, the Court, on motion made on behalf of the Crown, set aside the declaration and stayed the proceedings. [S. C. 11 L. J. Ex. 57. Applied, Dillon v. Balfour, 1871, 20 L. R. Ir. 600.] A rule had been obtained by the Attorney-General, calling upon the lessor of the plaintiff to shew cause why the declaration in ejectment in this cause should not be set (a) This case was decided in Easter Term (April 22), 1170 DOE V. ROE 8 M. &W. 380. aside, and why nil proceedings should not he stayed. It appeared from the affidavits in, support of the motion, that the present action was brought to recover possession of a house and land adjoining to Hurst Castle, in the county of Hants, in which a person of the name of Watson had been placed, in 1823, by the authority of the Board of Ordnance, as master gunner, in charge of the defences of Hurst Castle, which commands the passage of the Needles: that Hurst Castle had been, from the time of the reign of Henry VIII., a possession of the Crown of England ; and that the premises sought to be recovered were part of the hereditary possessions of the Crown, and were in the possession of the Crown. The declaration had been served upon Mr. Watson, and aleo upon the Board of Ordnance. [580] The affidavits in opposition to the rule denied that the property in question belonged to the Crown, and stated various acts of alleged ownership exercised over the locus in quo by the lessor of the plaintiff', and those under whom he claimed. Erie and Bere shewed cause against the rule. This ejectment is not, as is assumed for the purpose of this application, brought against the Crown, but against the officers of her Majesty's Ordnance, who, by virtue of the statutes I & 2 Geo. 4, c. G'J, 3 Geo. 4, c. 108, and 2 Will. 4, c. 25, are in the nature of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dillon v Balfour
...10 Best. & Smith, 58; L. R. 4 Q. B. 573. Burdett v. AbbottENR 14 East. 1. Jay v. TophamST1 12 State Trials, 822. Doe d. Leigh v. RoeENR 8 M. & W. 579. Stockdale v. Hansard 9 A. & E. 1. Hildige v. O'FarrellUNK 8 L. R. Ir. 158. Slander Privilege Member of Parliament Words spoken in course of ......
-
Taylor v Best, Drouet, Sperling and Clarke
...purpose if you produce an instance of pro-[516]-ceedings stayed where there has been no arrest.] An analogous case is Doe d. Legh v. Roe, 8 M. & W. 579. The board of ordnance, in the year 1823, put their servant Watson into possession of a house and land adjoining Hurst Castle, in the count......
-
Harvey v Harkin
...364. (2) Since reported—[1897] 2 I. R. 362. (1) 1 Exch. 441. (2) 6 Ch. D. 521. (3) 16 C. B. (N. S.) 310. (4) L. R. (N. S.) 73 (1833). (5) 8 M. & W. 579. (1) 8 M. & W. 579. (2) 7 A. & E. 124. (3) 1 Exch. 441. (4) 10 Ir. Eq. R. 60 (5) 16 C. B. (N. S.) 310. (6) L. R. 14 Eq. 558. (7) [1896] 2 I......
-
Sullivan v Earl Spencer and Others
...Ibid. 28. Taaffe v. Downes Ibid. 36, note; also reported separately by Mr. Hatchell. Buron v. DenmanENR 2 Ex. 167. Doe d. Legh v. RoeENR 8 M. & W. 579. De Haber v. Queen of Portugal, Wadsworth v. Queen of SpainUNK 20 L. J. Q. B. 488. Luby v. WodehouseUNK 17 Ir. C. L. R. 618. Entick v. Carri......