The Queen against John Petrie, William Petrie, James Petrie and Joseph Petrie

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1855
Date01 January 1855
CourtCourt of the Queen's Bench

English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 272

Queen's Bench Division

The Queen against John Petrie, William Petrie, James Petrie and Joseph Petrie

S. C. 3 C. L. R. 829; 6 Cox, C. C. 512; 24 L. J. Q. B. 167; 1 Jur. N. S. 752; 3 W. R. 243. Applied, Powers v. Bathurst, 1880, 49 L. J. Ch. 294; Vernon v. St. James's Vestry, 1880, 16 Ch. D. 457; Turner v. Walsh, 1881, 6 App. Cas. 642.

He has used language giving an estate for life to Matthew Hayes, and an estate in remainder in fee to his children, in the plainest terms, and in the most perfect technical form of words known to lawyers. And, as we think the authorities abundantly shew that the words of the proviso importing a failure of (736] issue of Matthew effect no alteration, either in the prior life estate of Matthew or the estate in fee of his children, it follows that the estate vested in Elizabeth Harding Hayes in fee, and descended to the defendant as her heir ; and that, consequently, the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench was right, and must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed. End ri,Hilary Term. in CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN HILARY VACATION, XVIII. VICTORIA (a). The Judges who sat in bane in this Vacation were : Coleridge J., Wightman J., Erie J., Crompton J. THE QUEEN against JOHN PETRIE, WILLIAM PETRIE, JAMES PETRIE AND JOSEPH PerrtttE, 1855. Indictment for obstructing a highway. Plea : Not guilty. On the trial it appeared that the alleged highway had been laid out as a projected street in 1827, and de facto used as a highway till 1836, when the defendants began to obstruct it, and soon after inclosed a portion of the road. The owners of the soil of the greater part of this road brought ejectment; the defendants entered into negotiations with them, and had agreed to open the road, but finally, in 1853, broke off the negotiations, assigning as their reason that they bad, since the negotiations commenced, acquired the fee of another part of the road. On that spot, of which the defendants thus claimed the fee, was the obstruction, the subject of the indictment. Evidence was given that that spot, on which the obstruction now was made, had been part of an estate settled in strict settlement in 1823, on a tenant for life, with power to grant building leases, and for the trustees of the settlement to sell, with consent of the tenant for life. The first tenant in tail was still, at the time of the trial, an infant. The tenant for life, being called as a witness, said, inter alia, that in 1828 the whole of this property had been sold by his trustees, and he had had nothing to do with it since. The Judge left it to the jury to say whether they would infer a dedication in 1829 from whoever was the owner of the fee. Verdict for the Crown.ùHeld a. proper direction ; for open user as of right by the public raises a presumptive inference of dedication requiring to be rebutted. And here the statement of the defendants that they acquired the fee in 1853, coupled with the evidence of the tenant for life that he had not had anything to do with it since 1828, was evidence that the fee was, in 1829, not subject to the settlement, so that there was nothing to rebut the prim& facie inference of dedication in 1829, arising from the public user as of right in that year. [S. C. 3 C. L. R. 829' . 6 Cox, C. C. 512 ; 24 L. J. Q. B. 167; 1 Jur. N. S. 752 ; 3 W. R. 243. Applied, Powers v. Bathurst, 1880, 49 L. J. Ch. 294 ; Vernon v. St. James's Vestry, 1880, 16 Ch. D. 467 ; Turner v. Walsh, 1881, 6 App. Cas, 6121 Indictment (found at the Lancashire Quarter Sessions, and removed by certiorari into this Court) [738] for obstructing a highway forming the continuation of Rope Street in Rochdale. Plea : Not guilty. Issue thereon. On the trial, before Crowder J., at the Liverpool Spring Assizes, much evidence was given ; but the following facts only were ultimately material. Rope Street, in Rochdale, mentioned in the indictment, runs from west to east, across a street called Whitehall Street running north and south, into another street running north and south called King Street. The obstruction complained of was a (a) The Court of Queen's Bench sat in Bane on February 7th and 22d, 4 EL. THE QUEEN V. PETRIE 273 wall with gates, built across the extreme end of Rope Street, so as to make the access to that street from King Street private. And the question in the cause was, whether this extreme eastern part of Rose Street had ever been dedicated to the public, so as to become a highway. Evidence of title was given, by which it appeared that before 1815, when these streets had not been laid out, The Governors of Cheetham Hospital were owners in fee of the land to the west of the spot in question, and James Walmsley was owner in ;fee of the land to the east of it. King Street was afterwards laid out along the boundary between the properties as far north as the spot at which Rope Street now entered King Street. To the north of that point James Walmsley was owner in fee of the land on both sides of what is now King Street, the boundary between his estate and the Cheetham Hospital estate there diverging to the west, so as to make an acute angle with the line of King Street. On examining the parcels in the conveyances, it appeared that this boundary line diverged towards the west from King Street at what was now the south east corner of Rope Street, so that the Walmsley property included about a yard and a half of the end of Rope (739) Street next to King Street. This was the spot on which the Messrs. Petrie now maintained their wall and gate. James Walmsley died in 1815, having by his will devised his property to his Son, who died...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Walsh v Sligo County Council
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 20 December 2010
    ...v. Athlone U.D.C. [1968] I.R. 205. The Queen's Case (1820) 2 Brod. & Bing. 284; 129 E.R. 976. The Queen v. Petrie (1855) 4 El. & B. 737; 119 E.R. 272. R. (Beresford) v. Sunderland City Council [2003] UKHL 60, [2004] 1 A.C. 889; [2003] 3 W.L.R. 1306; [2004] 1 All E.R. 160. R. (Godmanchester ......
  • Edward Walsh and Another v County Council for County of Sligo
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 11 November 2013
  • Smith v Wilson
    • Ireland
    • King's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 29 June 1903
    ...for ancient facts by a legal origin. In Williams v. Eyton (8) the user was for twenty-seven years. In Rex v. Jolliffe (10) proof (1) 4 E. & B. 737. (2) 6 App. Cas. (3) L. R. 2 Ex. 316. (4) 10 A. C. 378, at p. 386. (5) 7 I. C. L. R. 489. (6) 12 I. C. L. R. 1. (7) 7 I. C. L. R. 489, at p. 499......
1 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Planning Law. A Practitioner's Handbook Contents
    • 30 August 2019
    ...ex parte Balchin [1996] EWHC Admin 152, [1998] 1 PLR 1, [1997] JPL 917, [1997] COD 146, QBD 6, 265 R v Petrie (1855) 19 JP 483, 4 El & Bl 737, 119 ER 272 530 R v Plymouth City Council ex parte Plymouth and South Devon Cooperative Society Ltd (1994) 67 P & CR 78, [1993] 2 PLR 75, [1993] 36 E......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT