The Queen against Bliss
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 November 1837 |
| Date | 20 November 1837 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 577
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 2 N. & P. 464; W. W. & D. 624; 7 L. J. Q. B. 4. Discussed, Mercer v. Denne, [1905] 2 Ch. 564.
[550] the queen against Buss. Monday, November 20th, 1837. The question in a cause being, whether a particular road, admitted to exist, was public or private, evidence was offered that a person, since deceased, had planted a willow on a spot adjoining the road, on ground of which he was a tenant, saying, at the same time, that he planted it to shew where the boundary of the road was when he was a boy. Held, that such declaration was not evidence, either as shewing reputation, as a statement accompanying an act, or as the admission of an occupier against his own interest. [S. C. 2 N. & P. 464 ; W. W. & D. 624 ; 7 L. J. Q. B. 4. Discussed, Mercer v. Denne, [1905] 2 Ch. 564.] Indictment for obstructing a public highway. Plea, not guilty. On the trial before Gaselee J., at the Suffolk Spring Assizes, 1836, a principal question was, whether the way obstructed was public or private. A witness for the prosecution stated that one Ramplin, a publican, who was dead at the time of the trial, had planted a willow thirty years ago on a meadow of which he was tenant and occupier, K. B. xli.- 19 578 THE QUEEN V. BLISS 1 AD. ft E. 581. and over which the way in question now ran. The counsel for the prosecution then asked "what Baraplin said, when he planted the willow, about his planting it1?" The question was objected to, but admitted by the learned Judge, and the witness answered that Ramplin said he planted it to shew where the boundary of the road was when he was a boy. The willow had remained ever since. The jury found that the way was public, and a verdict was taken for the Crown. In the ensuing term, a rule nisi was obtained for a new trial, on the ground that the above evidence ought not to have been admitted. B. Andrews and Byles now shewed cauae. First, Ramplin's statement was receivable as the declaration of a tenant against his own interest (a). By admitting that a public road passed over the land he abridged his own rights in it. The acts of tenants in such cases have been held legitimate evidence, their interests being the flame as those of the reversioners, though, in Daniel v. [651] North (11 East, 372), a distinction was drawn as to window-lights established, with the tenant's acquiescence, in opposite premises. Le Blanc J. said there, " It is true, that presumptions are sometimes made against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walsh v Sligo County Council
...(No. 2)[2010] UKSC 11, [2010] 2 A.C. 70; [2010] 2 W.L.R. 653; [2010] 2 All E.R. 613. R. v. Bliss (1837) 7 Ad. & El. 550; 7 L.J.Q.B. 4; 112 E.R. 577; [1835-42] All E.R. 372. Reg. v. Hawkhurst (1862) 7 L.T. 268; (1862) 27 J.P. 262. R. v. Mitchell (1892) 17 Cox C.C. 503. Reg. v. Oxfordshire C.......
-
Bridget and Papendick against William Bridgwater
...had at the time of the trial. The objection to the evidence in the present case is that the interests are not the same. Regina v. Bliss (7 A. & E. 550) is strongly in point for the plaintiff. The question there was, whether a given road was public or private: to shew that it was public, evi......
-
Doe on the several demises of George, Earl of Egremont, and Edmonstone, against Mary Ann Forwood
...lease (the first above mentioned) was expressed to be granted (d) 1 C. M. & R. 919, 930. S. C. 5 Tyr. 458, 472. See Begina v. Bliss, 7 A. & E. 550. 648 DOE V, FORWOOD 3 0-B. MS. " for the consideration of the surrender of the present lease, and which is hereby surrendered accordingly," and ......