R v Broke
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1859 |
| Date | 01 January 1859 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 175 E.R. 832
QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Bury St Edmunds Lent Assizes, coram Pollock, C B March, 1859, regina v broke (In an indictment for stopping up a highway, removed by certiorari into the Court of Queen's Bench, and tried at the assizes, the counsel for the defendant may sum up his evidence at the close of his case as in a civil action. If a particular class of persons use a pathway, and the owner does not interrupt the user for some private reason not communicated to the persons using the path, a public right of way is gained by the user after a lapee of twenty years ) This was an indictment for stopping up a highway, preferred at the Quarter Sessions 1 F. & F. 515. EEGINA V. WEBSTER 833 of the borough of Ipswich against Sir George Philip Broke, Bart, and removed by certiorari into the Court of Queen's Bench Several witnesses were called for the prosecution, chiefly seafaring people, who proved that they had been in the habit of usim/ the footpath in question without interruption for a great number of years At the close of the case for the prosecution, [515] Keane, for the defendant, asked the Chief Baron if he should be allowed to sum up the evidence ae in a civil case Pollock, C. B -This is a mere question of right It ih, in reality, a cause, and the defendant ought to have the same rights as in a civil action (a) Keane was then about to call witnesses to prove...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fairey v Southampton County Council
...the public right and would not be concerned to assert it. This view is supported by a case which was decided nearly a hundred years ago - R. v. Broke (1859) 1 F. & F. 514) - about a footpath at Ipswich. Seafaring men proved that they had used the path without interruption for a great many y......
-
R (Godmanchester Town Council) v Environment Secretary; R (Drain) v Environment Secretary
...unless it could be said to have been the result of tolerance. As to the reason for the words “sufficient evidence that”, see R v Broke 1 F & F 514. There is no authority for any overt requirement prior to 1932: Barraclough v Johnson 8 A & E 99. Although there are many examples given in Prat......
-
R. v. Flemming, (1980) 43 N.S.R.(2d) 249 (CoCt)
...290 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31]. Shymkowich (1954), 19 C.R. 401 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31]. R. v. Tinkler (1859), 1 F. & F. 513; 175 E.R. 832, refd to. [para. 31]. R. v. Kerr (1965), 47 C.R. 268 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 31]. R. v. De Marco (1973), 13 C.C.C.(2d) 369 (Ont. C.A.),......
- Cattanach v Harrison
-
Table of Cases
...112 R (Young) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2002] EWHC 844 (Admin) 70, 137 R v Broke (1859) 1 F&F 514, 175 ER 832 21 R v Cornwall County Council ex parte Huntington [1994] 1 All ER 694, CA 142 R v Hatfield (Inhabitants) (1736) Lee Temp Hard 315 7 R v High......