The Duke of Beaufort v The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Swansea
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 1849 |
| Date | 09 February 1849 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 154 E.R. 905
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
Referred to, Hastings Corporation v. Ivall, 1874, L. R. 19 Eq. 581; Duke of Devonshire v. Pattinson, 1887, 20 Q. B. D. 275; Sutton Harbour Improvement Company v. Plymouth v. Pattinson, 1887, 20 Q. B. D. 275; Sutton Harbour Improvement Company v. Plymouth Guardians, 1890, 6 T L R 400, Attorney-General of Southern Nigeria v John Holt and Company (Liverpool) Limited, [1915] A C 604
[413] SlTTTNUB AFTER HlLARY TERM, 12 VfOT. the duke of beaufort v. the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of swansea. Feb. 9, 1849.-The sea shore between high and low water mark may be parcel of the adjoining manor; and where, by an ancient grant of the manor, its limits are not defined, modern usage is admissible in evidence to shew that such sea shore is parcel of the manor. Thus, evidence of modern acts of ownership was held to have been properly admitted as evidence to shew that grants by King John and King Edward I., of certain lands by the terms of " Terra de Grower," and Dominium de Terne de G-ower," included the sea coast down to low water mark. And, per Parke, B., all ancient grants may be explained by evidence of modern usage, upon a question as to what passed by such documents. [Referred to, Hastings Corpffration v. Ivall, 1874, L. It. 19 Eq. 581; Duke of Devonshire v. Pattinson, 1887, 20 Q. B, D. 275; Sutton Harbour Improvement Company v. Plymouth Ex. Div. x.-29* 906 THE DUKE OF BEAUFORT V THE MAYOR, ETC , OF SWANSEA SEX 4. Guardiatis, 1890,6 T L E 400, Attarney-Geneial of Southern Nigeria v John Holt and Company (Liverpool) Limited, [1915] A C 604 ] Trespass for breaking and entering a certain close of the plaintiff, at Swansea, in the county of Glamorgan, abutting on the east on the western piei of Swansea, and on the south 011 the sea shore, and for electing thereon certain seats, c Pleas, inter alu-first, not guilty, and secondly, that the said close was not the close of the plaintiff, modo et forma Upon which pleas issues were joined It appeared, at the trial of the cause, befoie Williams, J, at the last Spring Assizes for the county of Glamorgan, that the trespass for which the action was bi ought was the erection of certain benches on a ballast bank on the sea shoie at Swansea between high and low water maik It was contended, on the pait of the plaintiff, that the locus in quo was his, as being parcel of the seignioiy of Gower It appealed that the seigniories of Gowet and Kilvey were of veiy great extent, and were anciently called, and passed in charters and giants, by the general name of " Tena de Gower" By that name they weie granted by charter by King John, in the fourth year of his reign, to William De Bteos arid his heirs, "with all the liberties, free customs, and appurtenances to the same belonging " That chai tei was confirmed by King Edward I, with the addition of "all mariner of jurisdiction, and all loyal liberties and free customs which Gilbert de Clare, son of Richard de Clare, heretofore Earl of Glouces-[414]-tei and Hereford, had in his land of Glamorgan," and was again confitmed by King Edwaid II, and King Edward III The chaiter of Edward III, A D 1329, which was given in evidence, contained an inspeximus of the three foregoing charters, and was also a confirmation of William de Breos's charter to John de Mowbray and his wife Aliva (who was De Bieos's daughter), and it lecited that charter as being of "all the lands, tenements, lents, and possessions, with all the caatles, towns, liberties, free customs, commodities, lordships, demesnes, woods, lehefs, esaheats, seivices of freemen and bondmen, and with all their appurtenances, within ' Domimum de ten* de Gower '" From Alu a De Mowbray these lands passed, by mannage, into the family of the Eails of Pembioke, and from them in like mannei, to the family of the Earls of Woicester, the ancestors of the plaintiff This link in the title was proved by the production of several inquisitions post mortem, of the date of Henry VI and Elizabeth After the production of a laige body of other documentary evidence for the purpose of tracing the title of the seignioiy of Gower to the plaintiff, in order to shew that the locus in quo was parcel of and was comprised in the seigniory of Gower, and as having passed by the ancient grants, evidence of many acts of ownership in modern times was adduced The learned Judge told the jury, that the plaintiff's case was, that he was entitled to the giound between high and low water mark, as part of his seigniory of Gower, that the plaintiff relied, first, on documentary evidence, and that he was of opinion that the documentary evidence did not necessarily carry a right to the ground in question, and that they (the jury) must look at all the evidence in the case, and say whether they thought that, either by .grant or by prescription, the ptoperty had passed from the Crown to those whose estate the Duke now had His Lordship then put four questions to the jury in writing, the first of which alone is material to the present ques-[415]-tion -" Is the land between high and low water mark part of the seigniory of Gower?" The jury found this question in the affirmative, they also answeied all the other questions put to them by the learned Judge in the plaintiff's favour His Lordship thereupon directed a verdict to be entered for the plaintiff upon all the issues, with 40s damages, reserving leave to the defendants to move to set that veidict aside, and to enter a verdict for the defendants, upon a question raised by the defendant's counsel The Attorney-General subsequently obtained a rule nisi accordingly, upon the point reserved, and for a new trial, on the ground...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamilton v The Attorney-General
...837. Dickens v. Shaw Hall on the Sea-shore, App. xlv. Chad v. TilsedENR 2 Br. & B. 403. The Duke of Beaufort v. The Mayor of SwanseaENR 3 Exch. 413. Lord Donegall v. Lord TemplemoreUNK 9 Ir. C. L. R. 374. In re the Belfast Dock Act I. R. 1 Eq. 128. Howe v. Stawell Al. & N. 348. Constable v.......
-
Bristow v Cormican
...v. Ulswater Steam Navigation Co.ENR 3 B. & S. 742. Harrison v. HampsonENR 4 C. B. 267. The Duke of Beaufort v. The Mayor of SwanseaENR 3 Ex. 413. Waterpark v. FurnellENR 7 H. L. C. 653. The Attorney-General v. DrummondUNK 1 D. & War. 368. Malcolmson v. O'DeaENR 10 H. L. C. 614. THE IRISH RE......
-
The Belfast Dock Act, 1854, and The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. v ex parte The Earl of Ranfurly
...C. C. 475. Berridge v. WardENR 10 C. B. N. S. 400. Simpson v. DendyENR 8 C. B. N. S. 433. The Duke of Beaufort v. The Mayor of SwanseaENR 3 Exch. 413. The Attorney General v. Jones 2 H. & Colts. 347. Doe v. KempENR 2 Bingh. N. C. 162; S. C. 2 Sc. 9. UNK 9 Ir. C. L. R. 374. Ancient Grant —— ......
-
The Duke of Devonshire v Neill and Fenton
...v. Pulman 3 Q. B. 622. Rowe v. BrentonENR 8 B. & C. 737. Daniel v. WilkinENR 7 Ex. 437. The Duke of Beaufort v. Mayor of SwanseaENR 3 Ex. 413. Waterpark v. FennellENR 7 H. L. C. 650. Stammers v. DixonENR 7 East, 200. Kingslake v. BevissENR 7 C. B. 456. The Attorney-General v. Drummond 1 Dru......