Roy v The Duke of Beaufort
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 June 1741 |
| Date | 05 June 1741 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 519
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Case 160.-Dean and Chapter of ely versus wak.ren, June 2, 1741. The evidence of a neighbouring manor shall not in general be admitted to shew the custom of another manor.-Courts of law have admitted evidence with regard to profits of mines out of other manors, where they are similar, to explain the custom of the manor in question.-Copyholders in fenny lands may be intitled to dig up the lord's soil for turf. The end of the bill was to prevent waste in digging and carrying away the soil in manors that lie in the levels in Cambridgeshire. Evidence of customs in a neighbouring manor, offered to be read, to shew the customs of the manor in question. Lord Chancellor. It is certainly the rule of law in general, that the evidence of neighbouring manors shall not be admitted to shew the custom of another manor, because every manor is to be governed by its own customs. But this rule is not so universal as not to be varied in some instances; as in mine countries, Derbyshire, &c., the courts of law have admitted evidence with regard to profits of mines, &c., out of other manors where they are analogous and similar, to explain or corroborate the custom of the manor in question. Now, in the present case, there is a great similitude in the manors, because this is a fen county, which is of very large extent, and the nature of fens and marshes throughout England are pretty much the same. The custom here iss to dig up the lord's soil for turf which is a very odd custom if applied to any other soil: but fenny and marshy lands are often overflowed, and lie buried under water for seven or eight years, and produce no profit at all to the copyholder, and therefore, by way of compensation, when the water is drained, and the land improved from the additional soil brought by the floods, the copyholder may be intitled to common of turbary ; and this seems to be a plausible pretence for such a right; and therefore the evidence offered by the plaintiff must be read. [190] Though depositions taken de bene esse are irregular, yet at the hearing of the cause it is too late to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lucio Robert Paciocco and Another v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd
...[ 22 ER 753] (a condition to behave civilly and not disparage his neighbour's goods). See also Roy v Duke of Beaufort (1741) 2 Atk 190 [ 26 ER 519] (a condition not to trespass onto the Duke's land to shoot, hunt or fish); Rolfe v Peterson (1772) 2 Bro PC 436 [ 1 ER 1048] (a condition not t......
-
Astley v Frances Weldon
...secured by a [352] penal sum, should also be a penal sum, would have been absurd. Indeed Lord Hardwicke in Boy v. The Duke of Beaufort (2 Atk. 190) was of opinion, that a person who had entered into a bond wilh a penalty of 1001. if he poached, must have paid the 1001. if he had committed a......
-
Hardy v Martin
...cases mentioned were Cro. Ja. 596: 1 Sid. 442. Mitchell v. Reynolds, 1 P. W. 181. Tall v. Ryland, 1 Cha. Ca. 183. Roy v. Duke of Bedford. 2 Atk. 190. Rolfe v. Peterson, 6 Bro.^. G. 470. Lord Loughborough. The penalty is never considered in this court, as the price for doing what a man has e......
-
Fallowes against Taylor. [in the COURT of KING'S BENCH.]
...the judgment discharged. Leyeester for the plaintiff. Milles, Lane, and Abbot, for the defendant. (a) Who was the clerk of the peace. (b) 2 Atk. 190. English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 1085 IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.Fallowes against Taylor Questioned, Keir v. Leeman, 1846, 9 Q. B. 393; ......
-
COMPOSITION
...Prosecutor [1980] 2 MLJ 56. 8 [1825] 3 LJOS 190. 9 Elworthy v Bird [1825] 3 LJOS 190 at 193. 10 3 P Wms 277. 11 Roy v Duke of Beaufort (1741) 2 Atk 190; Collins v Blantern(1767) 2 Wils 347. 12(1846) 9 QB 371. 13Keir v Leeman(1846) 9 QB 371 at 394. 14 One notable difference is that voluntari......