The King against The Inhabitants of Old Alresford
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 July 1786 |
| Date | 01 July 1786 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 1138
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
the king against the inhabitants of old alresford. Saturday, July 1st, 1786. Where the pauper rented " the fishery of a pond, with the spear-sedge, flags and rushes growing in or about the same, for 101. a year," the Court understood that the soil passed with it, and that it was a tenement within the statute 9 & 10 W. 3, c. 11. The fact of the pauper's taking a tenement of 101. a year is sufficient to give a settlement, though the lessor has no title. Two justices by an order removed John Dorey, his wife, and children, from the parish of Old Alresford to the parish of Chilton Candover, both in the county of Southampton. The sessions, on appeal, quashed that order, and stated the following case. [359] That the pauper's father, and also the pauper himself, resided in Old Alresford under a certificate from Chilton Candover, and that the pauper and his family before the order of removal became chargeable to Old Alresford parish. That after the pauper's father went into Old Alresford he rented a house and piece of land in Old Alresford at 31. a-year, and occupied the same several years. That during two years he took and held under a parol agreement from Mr. Edwards the following premises in Old Alresford, viz. the fishery of the pond, containing 60 acres, called Alresford-Pond, with the grates, &c. and also all the spear-sedge, flags, and rushes, growing in and about the said pond, and the right of cutting the sedge growing on a piece of rough meadow or sedgy ground, containing seven acres, not being part of the said pond, but being distinct therefrom, and held under a different right. That the pauper's father agreed to pay Mr. Edwards 101. a-year for the said premises, and to supply Mr. Edwards's house with fish. That during the time the pauper's father held the said premises of Mr. Edwards, he rented and held under a parol demise the fishery of the causeway river in New Alresford, with the grates to a small fish-house, and paid 31. a year for the same. That the said house and piece of land first mentioned, and the right of cutting sedge, &c. on the said seven acres of rough meadow ground, and the said fishery, &c. last-mentioned, were together of the annual value of 101. without taking the said pond or any thing thereto belonging into the account. That the counsel for Old Alresford, to shew that Mr. Edwards had no right to demise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marshall against The Ulleswater Steam Navigation Company Ltd
...lib. 1, titul. 6, there referred to, p. 58; Smith v. Kemp (2 Salk. 637; S. C. Garth. 285); Rex v. The Inhabitants of Old Alresford (1 T. R. 358); Rex v. Ellis (1 M. & S. 652); Scratton v. Brovm (4 B. & C. 485); The Duke of Somerset v. Fogwdl (5 B. & C. 875); Doe d. Pring v. Pearsey (7 B. & ......
-
Lord Westmeath v Hogg
...PLEAS. Lord WESTMEATH and HOGG. Parker v. Plumer Cro. Eliz. 190. The King v. The Inhabitants of Old AlresfordENR 1 T. R. 358. Doe d. Dingley v. SalesENR 1 M. & S. 298. Close v. Brady Jon. & Car. 186. Doe d. Hanley v. WoodENR 2 B. & Al. 724. Pitt v. LamingENR 4 Camp. 73. Crusoe v. Bugby 3 Wi......
-
Irish Society v Crommelin
...199. Herbert v. Laughluyn 1 Cr. Ch. 492. Waddy v. NewtonENR 8 Mod. 275-8. Challoner v. ThomasENR Yelv. 143. The King v. Old AlresfordENR 1 T. R. 358, 361. Marshall v. Ulleswater Co.ENR 3 B & S. 732. Embarrassing Plaint — Ejectment for the Soil and Bed of a River, with the several Fishery of......