Richardson and Another against The Mayor and Commonalty of Orford
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 June 1793 |
| Date | 19 June 1793 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 126 E.R. 496
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER IN ERROR.
eiceardsok and another against the mayor and commonalty of orford. Wednesday, June 19th, 1793. [In the Exchequer Chamber in Error.] See 4 Term Rep. B. R. 437. To an action of trespass for fishing in the Plaintiffs' fishery, the Defendant pleaded that the locui in quo was an arm of the sea, in which every subject of tbe realm had the liberty and privilege of free fishing (a)2. The Plaintiff replied a prescription for tbe sole and several right of fishing, and traversed that every subject had the liberty and privilege of free fishing in the locus in quo. This was a bad traverse. The Defendant therefore might well pass it by in the rejoinder, and traverse the prescriptive right of the Plaintiff, stated in the replication. This was an action of trespass, in which the declaration contained five counts: 1. For fishing in the several fishery of the Plaintiffs in a certain haven called Orford haven, and tie fish, to wit, 10,000 bushels of oysters of the said Plaintiffs there being found ;and caught, seizing, taking and carrying away, and converting, &c. 2. For fishing in the free fishery of the Plaintiffs in a certain haven called Orford haven, (fee. &o. 3. For fishing in a certain other several fishery of the Plaintiffs in a certain river called Orford river, &c. &c. 4. For fishing in a certain other free fishery of the Plaintiffs in a certain river called Orford river, &c. &c. 5. For taking the fish of the Plaintiffs. Plea, Not guilty. 2. That the places and fish in the several counts mentioned were the same, and that the said place in which, &c. " in the said declaration mentioned, now is, and at the said several times when, &c. was, and from time whereof the memory of man is not to the contrary, hath been an arm of the sea, in which every subject of this realm at the said several times when, &c. in the said declaration mentioned, had and ought to have had, and yet hath and still ought to have, the liberty and privilege of free fishing; wherefore the [183] said John and William (the Defendants), being subjects of this realm, at the said sevaral times when, &c. in the said declaration mentioned, fished, &c. &c." The third plaa was the same in all respects as the second, except that it alleged the locus in quo to be a public navigable river, id which the tide and water of the sea flowed and reflowed, in which every subject of the realm had a right to fish, &c. The first replication, as to so much of the second plea as related to the fishing in the haren in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holford against Bailey
...437), where the action was shaped in tres-[1006]-pass. The judgment in that case was reversed on error; Richardson v. The Mayor of Or/ord (2 H. Bl. 182; 1 Anstr. 231); but no question was made as to trespass being maintainable for fishing in the plaintiff's several fishery in alietio solo. ......
-
The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Maldon, against Joseph Woolvet
...1 Mod. 105, 106, and Carter v. Mascot, 4 Burr. 2162, were also cited. (c), The last two acts were repealed by 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 27. (b) 2 H. Bl, 182 ; in error. S. C. (below) 4 T. IL 437. 12 AD. & E a THE MAYOR, ETC., OF MALDON V. WOOLVET 717 take (1.9] generally 1] It is enough, where a gener......
-
Mannall and Others v Fisher and Another
...2814, Mayor of Lynnv. Turner, Cowp. 16, The Mayor of Otibi'd v. Ri^M-rdsan, 4 T. R. 437 : but see the judgment in this case reversed, 2 H. Bl. 182, 2 Anstr. 231. 348 MA.NNATVL V. FISHER 5 C. B. (N. S.) 869. 1 Campb. 310, to prove a prescriptive fight to a fishery as appurtenant to a manor, ......
-
Rogers and Others v Allen
...place it was strenuously contended that a grant from the Crown ought to have been produced,, (a} Mayor ef Orford v Richardson, 4 T. R 437 , 2 H Bl 182. (6) 'Reed v. Jcwkson, 1 East, 355 (rt)a Vide Rae ex d. Beebbee v. Parker, 5 T. R. 26; Barry v. Bebbington, 4 T. R 514 ; Stead v Heaton, ^b.......