Poole v Huskinson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Exchequer |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1843 |
| Date | 01 January 1843 |
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 in the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
- Wild v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
-
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......
-
Walker v Leonach
... ... Brodie [ 10 App. Cas. 378 , at p. 386]. He begins by citing the doctrine laid down by Parke B. in Poole v. Huskinson [(1843) 11 M. & W. 827 at 830]: 'In order to constitute a valid dedication to the public of a highway by the owner of the soil, it is ... ...
