Roe, on the Demise of Johnson and Humphrey, against Ireland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 June 1809 |
| Date | 05 June 1809 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 1011
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[280] KOE, ON THE DEMISE OF JOHNSON AND HUMPHREY, against IRELAND. Monday, June 5th, 1809. The enfranchisement of a copyhold may, upon proper evidence, be presumed even against the Crown. And where a surrender had been made to churchwardens and their successors in 1636, without naming any rent, but in 1649 the Parliamentary survey charged the churchwardens with 6d. rent under the head of " freehold rents," and there was no evidence of any different rent having been paid since that time, and receipts had been given for it, as for a freehold rent, by the steward of the manor: Held that this was evidence to be submitted to a jury, on which they might presume a grant of enfranchisement, although the manor had continued out in lease from before 1636 to 1804, and though a tablet of parochial benefactions, at least as old as (a)1 M. 27 Geo. 3, B. K. cited in Patman v. Faughan, 1 Term Eep. 573. Vide Steward v. Ball, 2 New Eep. 78. . . - - (a)2 Willes, 588. 1012 BOB V.IRELAND 11 EAST,281. 1656, which was suspended in the parish church, noticed the gift of the copyhold by surrender, but did not notice any enfranchisement of it. In ejectment for certain copyhold lands, in which a verdict had been found for the plaintiff before Heath J., at Chelmsford Assizes, upon a rule nisi for a'new trial, the only question was, whether the learned Judge ought to have left it to the jury, under all the circumstances, to'presume an enfranchisement by the Crown? in which case the verdict ought to have been for the defendant. It appeared upon the report, and was now agreed, that the lands in question, which lay within the manor of Westham, were once copyhold, and continued so at least down to the 30th of April 1636, in the 12 Car. 1, when one J. Newman, who had been admitted tenant in the 5 Jac. 1, on the surrender of certain persons to him and his heirs, surrendered the premises in question, consisting of two cottages with gardens, &e. to the use of B. Collier and another, churchwardens of the parish of Westham, and to their successors. These entries were read from the court rolls, and no mention was made of the rent in either of those entries : but it appeared that 6s. 6d, was the old copyhold rent. And it was admitted that no tenant appeared on the rolls at any time subsequent to Newman's surrender, but that the annual rent of 6d. had been constantly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Earl of Lonsdale v Rigg
...were expressly reserved by the 5th section of that statute. Bent may be payable in respect of an enfranchised tenement: Roe v. Ireland (11 East, 280); and rent might always have been due for land held in socage tenure : 2 Blac. Comm. 86. The other services found to be in existence do not re......
-
Attorney General v Mathias
...Pelham v. Pickersgill (1 T. R. 667), Selby v, Robinson, .('1 Id~ 758), Griinstead v. Marlowe (4 Id. 717), Roe dem. Johnson v. Ireland. (11 East, 280), Gfooeltitle dem. Parker v. Baldwin (Id. 488), Mayor of Kingstm-upon-Hull v. Horner (Cowp, 102), Bright v. Walker (1 Or. M. & E. 211), Attorn......
-
Little and Another, in Error, v Wingfield and Others
...6 C. B. 861. Lopez v. Andrew 3 M. & Ry. 329, n. Vooght v. WiuchENR2 B. & Ad. 662. Williams v. Wilcox 8 Ell. & Bl. 314. Roe v. IrelandENR 11 East, 280. Duke of Devonshire v. Hodnett 1 Had. & Bro. 322. Doe v. IrelandENR 11 East, 294. Doe v. Millett 11 Q. B. 1036. Day v. Williams 1 Cr. & Jer. ......
-
Doe, d. THE RIGHT HON. GEORGE HAMILTON MARQUIS of DONEGAL, v RIGHT HON. HENRY SPENCER BARON TEMPLEMORE
...of the Hon. Judge Jebb. Hull v. Horner Cowp. 103. Bedle v. Beard 12 Co. 5. Gibson v. Clark 1 Jac. & Wal. 159. Roe d. Johnson v. IrelandENR 11 East, 280. Attorney-General v. RichardsENR 2 Anst. 603. Attorney-General v. ParmeterENR 10 Price, 410. Daniel v. NorthENR 11 East, 374. Barker v. Ric......