Poole v Huskinson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1843 |
| Date | 01 January 1843 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 1039
EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.
Approved, Bermondsey Vestry v Brown, 1865, 35 Beav. 226; L. R. 1 Eq. 204. Referred to, Mercer v. Woodgate, 1869, L. R. 5 Q. B. 32: Healey v. Batley Corporation, 1875, L. R. 19 Eq. 388; Vernon v. Vestry of St. James, Westminster, 1880, 16 Ch. D. 455; Mann v. Brodie, 1885, 10 A. C. 386; Abercrombie v. Fermoy Town Commissioners, [1900] 1 Ir. R. 313; Neaverson v. Peterborough Rural Council, [1901] 1 Ch. 22; Farquhar v. Newbury Rural Council, [1909] 1 Ch. 19; Coates v. Herefordshire County Council, [1909] 2 Ch. 591; Central London Railway v. City of London Land Tax Commissioners, [1911] 2 Ch. 481; Folkestone Corporation v. Brockman, [1914] A. C. 338.
poole . HuSKtNSON.(a) Exch. of Pleas. 1843. - There may be a dedication of a way to the public for a limited purpose, as for a footway, &c. ; but there cannot be a dedication to a limited part of the public, as to a parish. And such a partial dedication is simply void, and will not operate in law as a dedication to the whole public. - In order to constitute a dedication of a way to the public by the owner of the soil, there must be an intention so to dedicate, of which the user by the public is evidence, subject to be rebutted by contrary evidence of interruption by the owner. [Approved, tiermondxey Vestry v. Brmm, 1865, 35 Beav. 226 ; L. K. I Eq. 204. Referred to, Mercer v. floodgate, 1869, L. K, 5 Q. B. 3'2 : Hauley v. Bailey Corporation, 1875, L. K. 19 Eq. 388; Vernon v. Vestry of 81. James, Westminster, 1880, 16 Ch. D. 455; Mann v. B-rodie, 1885, 10 A. C. 386; AbercromMa v. Fermoy Tuton Commissioners, [ 1 900] I Ir. K. 313; Neawrxon v. Pnkrliorowjh Rural Council, [1901] 1 Ch. 22; Farquhar v. Newhiry Rural Council, [1909] 1 Ch. 19; (!oate.x v. Herefordshire County Cmtnril, [1909] 2 Ch, 591 ; Central London Kuilway v. City of London Land Tax Co/mmissionwa, [1911] 2 Ch. 48 1 ; Folkestone Corporation v, firockitum, [1914] A. C. 338.] Trespass for breaking to pieces certain gates and posts of the plaintiff, and taking and carrying away the materials thereof. Pleas - first, not guilty ; secondly, as to breaking &e. one gate, and taking and carrying away the materials thereof, a justification under a right of public way, claimed generally for all the liege subjects &c., on foot, and with cattle and carriages ; thirdly, a justification under a right of private carriage-way for the defendant, as the occupier of a messuage und land...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wild v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
...find as a fact that there had been an act of dedication accompanied the necessary animus dedicandi on the part of the land-owner: see Poole v Huskinson (1843) 11 M&W 827. 6.As a matter of experience and common sense, however, dedication is not usually the most likely explanation for long us......
-
Walker v Leonach
...[2002] 2 I.L.R.M. 94. In re McNeill (Unreported, High Court, Barr J., 14th December, 2001). Poole v. Huskinson (1843) 11 M. & W. 827; 152 E.R. 1039. Reg. v. Oxfordshire C. C., Ex p. Sunningwell P.C. [2000] 1 A.C. 335; [1999] 3 W.L.R. 160; [1999] 3 All E.R. 385. Rep. Church Body v. Barry [19......
-
Walsh v Sligo County Council
...1 I.L.R.M. 191. The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Pringle (1981) 2 Frewen 57. Poole v. Huskinson (1843) 11 M. & W. 827; 152 E.R. 1039. President of the Shire of Narracan v. Leviston[1906] 3 C.L.R. 846. Purtill v. Athlone U.D.C. [1968] I.R. 205. The Queen's Case (1820) 2 Brod. ......
-
Edward Walsh and Another v County Council for County of Sligo
...228. Murphy v.Wicklow County Council (Unreported, High Court, Kearns J., 19th March, 1999). Poole v. Huskinson (1843) 11 M. & W. 827, (1834) 152 E.R. 1039. The Queen v. Petrie (1855) 4 El. & Bl. 737; (1855) 119 E.R. 272. R. (Beresford) v. Sunderland City Council [2003] UKHL 60, [2004] 1 A.C......
-
The Lands of the Lord
...it. 39 Poole v Huskinson (1843) 11 M and W 827 per Parke B; cf R v Inhabitants of the Tithing of East Mark (1848) 11 QBR 877, 116 ER 701, 152 ER 1039. 40 [1901] Ch 22, [1902] 1 Ch 551. 41 (1890) 45 ChD 504. 102 The Law of the Manor The court held that the ‘main road’ did not extend to the r......
-
Table of Cases
...(1973) 26 P & CR 508, QBD 127 Pitman v Secretary of State for the Environment [1989] JPL 831, CA 92 Poole v Huskinson (1843) 11 M & W 827, 152 ER 1039 525, 529, 530 Poundstretcher Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1988] 3 PLR 69, [1989] JPL 90, [1988] EG 89 (CS) 151 Powell v Sec......
-
Table of Cases
...Council and the Ramblers Association [2010] EWHC 394 (Admin), [2010] All ER (D) 41 (Mar) 27, 28 Poole v Huskinson (1843) 11 M&W 827, 152 ER 1039, ExCh 5, 27 Powell v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2009] EWHC 643 (Admin), [2009] All ER (D) 288 (Mar), QBD 135 ......
-
Table of Cases
...v Noyes (1825) 4 Barn & Cress 639, 107 ER 1198 12.4 Pigg v Caley (1617) Noy R 27, 74 ER 997 3.3 Poole v Huskisson (1843) 11 M&W 827, 152 ER 1039 4.8, 6.6, 20.6 Post Office v Estuary Radio Ltd [1968] 2 QB 740, [1967] 1 WLR 1396, [1967] 3 All ER 663, CA 24.10 Posti and Rahko v Finland (2003) ......