Woolway v Rowe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 April 1834 |
| Date | 24 April 1834 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 1151
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 3 N. & M. 849; 3 L. J. K. B. 121. Referred to, In re Holland, [1902] 2 Ch. 379.
woolway against eowe. Thursday, April 24th, 1834. Declarations respecting the subject-matter of a cause, by a person who, at the time of making them, had the same interest in such matter as one of the parties now has, are admissible in evidence against that party, though the maker of them is alive, and might be called as a witness. On the question whether certain land be part of the plaintiff's estate, or waste of the manor, a perambulation of such manor, by the lord, including the land in question, is evidence, as shewing an assertion of ownership by the lord, though it be not proved that any person on behalf of the plaintiff was present at the perambulation, or knew of it. [S. C. 3 N. & M. 849; 3 L. J. K. B. 121. Eeferred to, In re Holland, [1902] 2 Ch. 379.] Trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff's close called Scorhill and spoiling the herbage, &c. Plea, the general issue. At the trial before Bosanquet, J., at the last Spring Assizes for Devonshire, it appeared that the plaintiff claimed the close in question as part of his estate; but the defendant alleged that it was part of the waste of a manor, and that the plaintiff had no interest in it but a right of turning on cattle. In support of his case the defendant called the son of a person who had formerly been proprietor of the estate now held by the plaintiff, to prove that his father, while [115] possessed of the property, had a right of common on Scorhill Down, the close in question, but never claimed any interest in it beyond that right, which was equally enjoyed by his fellow-parishioners; and that the witness had heard him say that he had no right to inclose the down. The father was alive (and in Court); and it was objected that, as he himself might have been called, evidence of his declarations was inadmissible. The learned Judge received the evidence. The defendant also called the lord of the manor, who stated that, about sixteen years back, shortly after he became lord, he made a perambulation of the manor and included in it the close in question. Upon this occasion he caused notice to be given, by a paper fixed on the church-door of the adjoining parish, that he intended, on a certain day, to perambulate Gidleigh parish and Common, Gidleigh Common being the waste of which the close in question was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walsh v Sligo County Council
...Derby (1867) L.R. 2 Ex. 316. Wisniewski v. Central Manchester H.A. [1998] Lloyd's Rep. Med. 223. Woolway v. Rowe (1834) 1 Ad. & El. 114; 110 E.R. 1151. Land - Easements - Public rights of way - Dedication - Ingredients necessary to establish public right of way - Whether public right of way......
-
Edward Walsh and Another v County Council for County of Sligo
...Wales, 21st December, 2009). Williams-Ellis v. Cobb [1935] 1 K.B. 310; [1934] All E.R. Rep. 465. Woolway v. Rowe (1834) 1 Ad. & El. 114; 110 E.R. 1151. Young v. Cuthbertson (1854) 1.Macq. 363. Land – Easements – Public rights of way – Dedication – User – Inference of dedication from long pu......
-
Bridget and Papendick against William Bridgwater
...against his interest, as to the fact that the declaration was by an occupier of the same land. Coleridge J. referred to Woolivay v. Rowe (1 A. & E. 114).] There the declaration which was admitted was made by a party (still living) who had, at the time of the declaration, the same interest i......
- Redman v Permanent Trustee Company of New South Wales Ltd