The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-03-27 00:00:00

TIME STOURBRIDGE OBSERVER..

id: All I claim is land which I have bout,ht and
paid for, and have ever since been iv possession of it.
I have witnesses here to prove everything that is
material, and I really don't see why I should be kept
here at my age—nearly ninety—being worried and
ettacked by counsel upon matters which others can
answer to better than I can.
The next witness, Lord St. Leonardo' bailiff—who
had been his bailiff for more than thirty years, anl
whose father had been his b tiltff before him—stated
that the trees cut down were in the belt of S mteh firs,
or inside the belt, which, he sand, went round the pro-
perty. There was, he state I, a bank inei le the belt,
and outside also there w -a a bank—at least, the tracer
I,f a bank—and ditch. He had warned off trespassers
from the land inside the bank and belt, and they had
desisted, and the bank anti belt had been treated as the
boundary. He had always dealt with the land inside
as Lord St. Leernarde, and had cut trees and taken
under atom]. He had done so ever since 1844, and he
had cut trees close to the spot where the trees in ques-
tion were cut. Moreover, he had seen Lord St.
Latinartlo' tenants otrort over the piece of land in quett-
tit tn. He had seen Mr. erwie, the lessee, there day
after day.
Sir G. Honyman then opened the case for the de-
fence, which, in substance, was that the boundary
between the properties, from the time when they had
first been separated—before Lnna St. Leonardo had trio
. —hail ire-n at the lace inandipranstrt,en,iiita,
that
his
his Lords ip did not intend to rely upon the si'atu'te
of bndt the title would be proved against him
and, in addition to a title arising from the deeds, there
would be evidence of acts of ownership.
The defendant in support of his ease put in his title
deeds, but though there was a plan 111101/ one of them
which marked the boundary rather in favour of his
case, it appeared that t was not referred to in the deed,
anti might have been subsequent to it. Evidence w..s
then gone into in support of the case for the defence.
An old man was called wh r had beer, in the service of
Mr. Jolliffe, when Lord St. Leortards was ra possession
of his rotate, and he said that a dispute arose between
Lord St. Leonartla and Mr. Johtfe Ma to the boundary,
and that the boundary was walked or trodden by four
old men under the personal inspection of Mr.
Joliffe, all of a hinn were now dead ; hut accord-
leg to the witness's evideette the boundary trod-
den was smith auto include in Mr. Ashburner's lionl the
slit in di-pute, and be said that Mr. Jeliffe tjeeted
to the planting of the trees. Rut upon crosstexantirta.
thin of the witness by Mr. Pollock, it appeared that
this was riot by any appointment with Lord Sc
Leonard (then Sir Edward &warn) who caste upon
them quite unexpectedly, proteeteti against it as a
trespaes, and ordered the witness off the ground, saying
" You get back over that bank into your own land,"
and the witness said he walked back and said nothing
(some laughter) and th ouch the parties went on beat-
ing the boundary, it was without inviting Sir Edward
to accompany them and witness it, and it was, so to
speak, "behind his hack."
Several other witnesses were called on behalf of Mr.
Ashburner to prove acts of ownership on the spot in
distoute, but they were a good deal broken dewn by
Air. Pollock in cross.exannination and it re illy did not
appear that they were streaking Of the same spot as the
witnesses on the other side, as they knew nothing of the
setting of trees and underwmrd, which was clearly
proved by Lord St. Leonardo' witnesses. In so far as
any of them could be suppose, I tsr lie speaking if the Carrie
spot, their evidence appeared to be ; cuttine
four pules on one occastii or, pulling a dozen bundles of
heath Oil auother, acts Id a natnre which might easily
have escaped notice or observation. It appeared that
imride the belt of trees there was a bank and I hitch.
and outside it there were traces of another bank and
ditch. It is difficult to give an accurate idea of local
ohjects, and the jury had had a " view " of the land.
Moreover, it appeared that Mr. Jolitfe would nt it all, rav
any of the trees planted by Lord St. Leonards to be
cut tit own. As Mr. Ashburner only came into the pro-
perty in 1862, of course he could give no evidence on
the weather.
At the close of the case for the defence.

Mr. Baron Bramwell, an summing up, said the great
question was who r ad enjoyed the land in disrute.
title deeds Come to little without evidence of actual
enjoyment, for otherwise any one might pretend to
give away the land of anybody else. [here was the
isitive and undisputed evidence of Li ird St. Leonardo
him. If that forty Years ago he actually planted a
double roe of Scotch fir trees—it w arid be difficult to
soppose a more otrikln4 act of owner-hip than that.
Building a wall could hardly have been more so. Now
the fir trees had been permitted to remain, FO that if
Lord St. Leopards avi re mistaken both iiartieshad been
mistaken. That was a most powerful piece of
evidence. It seemed difficult to suppose that the de-
fendant would not have resisted the planting of the
trees and required their removal or claimed them as his
own, if the land were his. There was also evidence of
actual sporting upon the land in dispute. The defendant
urged that Lord St. Leonardo did not pr -duce the
"Bat," said the learned IS iron, "that refusal ,
has my sympathy, as entirely in accordance with ,
sound seme, with justice, and with law. For it does
appear to me extremely hard that a man should Com-
mit a trespass upon the land of another, and
, then say to him, 'Produce your title deeds
anti show that the land OS yours?' Surely he
may fairly answer, 'Vii have no right to call upon
the to thou, for I am in possession and you are a tres-
passer. Produce yi fur ItWit deeds.'" There was, further,
on behalf of the plaintiff, the fact that he bad been in
exclusive possession for more than forty years, and if
the jury were satisfied of this, that he had been in ex-
clusive possession for More 01411 twenty, then the law
gave him a title under the Statute of Limitations. And
its should be sorry if it were ever supposed that a man
neght not righteously talcs advantage of such a title,
"Ii 1," said the learned Boron. " had been in
p saiession of land for a great many years I should be
very indispostd to give it up. At all events, such was
the law."
After a few minutes' consultation, the jury returned
a verdict for the plaintiff, Lord St. Leonards.