The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1885-07-14 00:00:00

IIK“ V. I

.....
Nliss Dras. Charlhot-murk Park, v. Henry Pt ter
Baker, of Mori.. —Mr. Charles. and Mr. Pitt
Lewis for the plaintiff, :itid Mr. Foote for the
.Tms to Mr. Cli oleo' ope g„
was as follows : Ti,.' action was brought by Mi.
Dr.is t,, recover puovessimi of a small piece .4 lawl in
the 'swish of Kast Nlorden, of iv. pecuniary value. It
wvs ahout 15 aen, in evtent, and plaintiff was
entitled to the jprol.qtY a.. Part of her estate
tinder a deed ewttlenteest dated 221. el Airy,
11t114. reed, that deed e.ettlentent :dur the
espirati. ... .4 certain life ....tate. -lee and her sister
her..m.• i.thAnt.6 it. eionthp.fi ..ettail. The last life
estate prior to their coming into isissession of their
estme 6.11 in ou ts:a, fin that day
the tiler .of the plaintiff and her mister died, the
tuother'a life ee.tate ',ethic the but 6.11.. to tatter% elle
between the ...tate .4 plaintiff and her neater, no that
from Ittra downward* she and her sister became
tenantta in c. on entail. The two ladies desire.'
to have a pal tition, mid aecordingly a partition suit
was (sauna...ll in the Court .4 Chancery, and 'in the
2:4rd March. PIM, a certilim. .4 partitViii was made
and attach...l to that cm titicate was a schedule .4 tle•
property that w.is given to the plaint.lf and allot leer
11110 her Miter. In that 'wheat& Waa the property in
linw nought t.. feeoVer. 111 1a67
Stir. urns became sole owner .4 the property Melt.
[haled in the partition deed. Title history i 4 the
affair, so far as the ilefetelant Wan CI ',H....m..1, Wa. ;et
followa:—Many years ago defendant's father held a
portion edjiroperty by the land claimed in this
actio h n. e Wilt a house and simile A KAPIeII.
AWL* it upon a portion of the lelaintira ...tate, or
rather tile estate .4 her prislecesvor in title. De
came into occupation .4 that vuttage and garden,
which he enclosed from the heath grid, of which the
plaintiff's jormwrty at this part .4 it consisted. lie
°tripled it till the year Darn and at the time he flied he
paid a rental 44 10s. a year as acknowledgment
to the plaintiff's preirleoessors. During the course of
1.,.. ocenpation, from time 1.. ti,,. he Wok in little
hits .4 the waste land adjoining, and Noun his death
his two sons, Samuel and Henry Peter, entered up.n
pos.e.ion of the lentee and garden and the land be

had added. Samuel Baker appeared to have occupied
the cottage till 1579. when he died. Defendant was
a lalsairer, and °cowl's' the land from Itriti till IMO,
and the widow oof
house and garden. Thnoughoot Samuel Baker and
his widow rent t.o Mina Dras. The widow went
out in InS3, and defendant, after the death of his
father, occupied • portion of the encroachtsl land, and
paid rental at the rate .4 MN. poor year. Meanwhile,
he load occupied other 'sorts of the estate 44
.11iss Drax, hi, total rental in 1373 amounting
to more than £44 a year, including the piece
in question. In 173, in eonaispieuce et his
rent lain iii arrear, notice bi quit was
gi% en by Miss Drax, and defendant did quit all
the minims except the tort new in question, also the
whereon were the home and irarden. in 1)4141,
'li-.. lran gave him notice to .1134 t land, and in
September .4 that year his rent being in arrears, she
a...trained upon the cottage and garden. and the dis•
tress wa. satisfied. At the evpiration I.f the notice to
quit, defendant still refused to go, ind son acison of
ejectment in the county court was instituted. In that
action by 1011110 11041410 the house and garden alone
were included, and the "encroachments • were
omiittrol. Judgment for plaintiff was given, and ais
lineation was made to the Judge in County Court to
o owl the judgment 50 as to make good the
omission, lout his Honour had mo authority, and hence
this action.—The defence set up was that the
plaintiff was not entitled to the hind at all,
'vocalise defendant's father originally encheed it
front the moor or Imath calk! Nlonlen heath,
which belonged to the poor of the parish of Moreton,
but Mr. ('hark,. Clolllolllll`ll that if defendant
encroached he encroached fir theta-milt of Miss Wax,
for is tenant could not encroach for the benefit of any-
buy but the lanolloord.--Mr. Fmote said the land was
encroached about the beginning of the eentury, and
tiny bad never laid n•nt or suffered any his y for the
the subject of this at-thou. —As the case turned
on a point .1( law, the jury was discharged. and counsel
proceeded to argue the matter before his lordahil,
The argument wa. not concluded whou the Court.
nee. The ClOOl WWI argued at great length on Iloontlay
morning. and ultimately a verdict for the plaintiff was
returned.
elAtti runt aI.I.E.:En nib ill'altaNnltV.
Eglnigtea e. Scutt 4 llen Regis). W:11 a claim
for £1,076 12s. 3d. for Ind cultivation and arrears
rent. There was a set•off of 1:17,7 3.. 2.1. for t Maps..
Mr. T. T. Bucknill, and Mr. Mullen appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Charles, and Mr.
Matthews for the defendant. —Plaint lira ease was that
Mr. Senn left the fann in such a ....minion that he
nonsidered lii• bad 11 claim fir nompensation
in respect of bad huslandry. De contended the
defendant was hound to fano according ho gmal
Itualsoillry and the custom .4 the country. The case
was mentioned on Saturday. :11111 the Judge Kohl the
question for the jury W:01 merely 10. bi the elettean .4
the country. It Vlll.l r. .ll is Monday, when Mr.
(11116.4 said Mr. Itucknill concertos! for the purposes
o 4 this action, that the defendant was mot 6otind by
the oillegeil custom, and that being a., he had nothing
hi take opinion .4 the jury upon. With regard to
the rest of the claim it was only one of valuation, and
as that could only he done by a barrister, he would
ask his Lordship hi discharge the jury This was
d lt was understood an arbitrator had been agreed
011.