Reeve against Digby

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1792
Date01 January 1792
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 79 E.R. 1027

IN THE KING'S BENCH.

Reeve against Digby

case 3. eeeve against digby. Trinity Term, 13 Car. 1. Eoll 303. In an action for disturbance of common by digging turf and making a fish-pond, on issue whether sufficient common remained, a verdict finding disturbance as to the turfs, and no disturbance as to the fish-pond, is not repugnant; for it is in different respects. 2 Eoll. Abr. 695. 702. 717. Hob. 73. 202. 1 Ander. 41. 3 Mod. 72. Latch. 93. Hardres, 330. 2 Lev. 140. Dougl. 377. Error of a judgment iu the Common Pleas in an action upon the case, for the disturbance of using his common in a certain place called " the Lakes ; " and shews the prescription of common, and the disturbance by digging forty thousand turfs, and making of a fish-pound. The defendant pleaded, that he was lord of the manor, and improved the said several parcels according to the statute, leaving sufficient common in the residue. Issue being thereupon, the jury found as to the parcel where the digging of the forty thousand turfs was, that the defendant had not left to the plaintiff sufficient commou, and assessed damages five shillings and coats ; and as to the digging of the 1028 EASTER TERM, 14 CAR. 1. IN B. R. CRO. CAR. 496. fish-pond, that the defendant had left to him sufficient common. And upon this verdict judgment was given for the plaintiff' for the first, which is directly found against the defendant; and for the other part, for digging of the fish-pond, judgment was for the defendant, and the plaintiff in misericvrdid. The error hereupon assigned was, that this verdict was repugnant, to find that he had not sufficiency...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT