Doe dem. Barret v Kemp
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 June 1835 |
| Date | 09 June 1835 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 132 E.R. 40
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 2 Scott, 9; Hodges, 231; 4 L. J. C. P. Ex. 331. Applied, Twill v. West Hom Local Board, 1873, L. R. 8 C. P. 453.
[102] (!n the exchequer chamber.) doe dem. barrett v. kemp. June 9, 1835. [S. C. 2 Scott, 9; Hodges, 231; 4 L. J. Ex. 331. Applied, Tutill v. West Ham Local Board, 1873, L. E. 8 C. P. 453.] Upon a question whether a piece of waste land between a highway and enclosures belonged to Plaintiff, the owner of the adjoining enclosure, or to the lord of the manor, Held, that the lord might give evidence of grants by-him of the waste between the road and the enclosures of other persons at a distance from the spot claimed by the Plaintiff, provided such evidence were confined to the road which passed by the spot claimed by the Plaintiff. In this cause the question was, whether a slip of land between some old enclosures and the highway, vested in the lord of the manor, or the owner of the adjoining freehold. At the Norfolk Summer assizes, 1830, a verdict was found for the lessor of the Plaintiff, who claimed under the owner of the adjoining freehold, when, Evidence of acts of ownership by the lord of the manor on portions of the waste adjoining the highways, in various other parts of the manor, but not adjoining the lord's own freehold, having been rejected by Littledale J., who tried the cause, this 2 BING. (N. C. 183. DOE V. KEMP 41 Court directed a new trial (see 7 Bing. 332), which accordingly took place; and Lyndhurst C. B,, who presided, then admitted evidence of grants or licences to enclose, made by Defendant, the lord of the manor, at the manor court, to Clarke, Bolton, and Gilbert. The portions of land enclosed under these grants were by the side of the same highway as that which skirted the land claimed by the lessor of the Plaintiff, but about two miles distant from the locus in quo, and not adjoining the freehold of the Defendant. Evidence was also received of grants of land, by the side of the highway, to Hunt, Harrison, and Spurden, but the locality of the land enclosed by them was no otherwise described than as waste within the manor. A bill of exceptions was tendered to the reception of the whole of this evidence; and a verdict having been found for the Defendant, the case was argued in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, by s [103] Sir Wm. Follett, for the lessor of the Plaintiff, and B. Andrews, for the Defendant. Cur. adv. vult. lord denman C. J., now delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an ejectment brought...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe, d. THE RIGHT HON. GEORGE HAMILTON MARQUIS of DONEGAL, v RIGHT HON. HENRY SPENCER BARON TEMPLEMORE
...397. Chad v. TilsedENR 2 Brod. & Bing.406. Stanley v. WhiteENR 14 East, 332. Jones v. WilliamsENR 2 Mees. & Wels. 326. Doe v. KempENR 2 Bing. N. C. 102. Saunders v. Lord Annesley 2 Sch. & Lef. 101. Hillary v. Waller 12 Ves. 254. Holcroft v. HeelENR 1 Bos. & pul. 400. Campbell v. WilsonENR 3......
-
Jones v Williams
...Chilton obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground that tha evidence was improperly rejected : citing Doed. Barret v. Kemp (2 Bing. N. C. 102 ; 2 Scott, 9). John Evans and W. M. James now shewed cause. The evidence was rightly rejected. It was an attempt to give in evidence acts wh......
-
Lessee of Anna Garland v Caroline Cope
...Bench. Lessee of ANNA GARLAND and CAROLINE COPE. Doe v. KempENR 2 Bing. N. C. 102. Jones v. WilliamsENR 2 Mees. & Wels. 326. Crease v. Barrett 1 Cr. Mees. & Ros. 931. Sweetland v. WebberENR 1 Ad. & El. 733. Loscombe v. CliffordENR 2 Car. & Kir. 448. The Marquis of WinchesterENR 3 Scott, 577......