The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-07-23 00:00:00

Soul aub gistritt Pius.

COUNTY COURT

THE RIGHT OF COMMON LAND.

Ma/pass V. The Bight lion. the Earl if Stam•
ford «nd Warrington.—This was an action in
replevin brought before Mr. Godson, Daputy
Judge, at the County Court, on Wednesday last.
ine plaintiff, Joseph Malpass, of the parish of
Euvilie, sued George Harry Grey, the Hight
Hon. the Earl of Stamford and Warriugton,
"for that he, the defendant, upon the 11th day
of May, 1870, at the parish of Enville, in or
upon a certain common there, called Higlasate
Common, dui take or cause to be taken twenty-
three sheep and thirteen lambs, the property of
the plaintiff, and unjustly detained the same.'
'the damages were assessed at £2.
Mr. young of the Oxford circuit) instructed
by Mr. Waterhouse, of Wolverhampton, ap-
peared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Bueanquet iot
use Oxford circuit) instructed by Messra. Freer
and Perry, of this town, for the defendant.
Mr. Dosanquet first called the keeper to the
Earl of btaiuturd, who proved that a distraint
ut some sheep belonging to plaintiff was made
in 1868 by order of Mr. it. Cocks, the defend.
ant's steward, for allowing them to stray upon
Mode Common, at Entitle. Another keeper
was called, and proved Mode was divided from
Lutley Cowmen.
mr. Cocks was next called to prove defend-
ant's ownership of Mode Common. In 1868
plaintiff's sheep were distrained for being found
upon Morfe Common, but were returned upon
Mm promising to keep them off it, and confine
them to Lutley Cenituun.
Mr. Young then proceeded to state the plain.
tiff's cuss, and said that the action was brought
by plaintiff as a "common appurtenant" in res-
pect of a house and land in Bobbington. lie
should call the plaintiff to prove that there was
no distinction between Highgate or Mode Com-
mon. lie had been accustomed to turn the
sneep upon the common for many years, and his
father before him i xereised the same right witii-
wut being interrupted. The law required that
the light must have been exercised 30 years be-
lure it could be butiGiantial, and if enjoyed for
sixty years then it was matte absolute. He could
prove that it had been enjoyed for it Period 01
eighty years. It appeared that wnere the sheep
were turned upon was a favourite spot for the
Earl of Stamford's game, and during the last
breeding season the plaintiff kept a man a por-
tion of the time to prevent them running over
the miffs. lie then called Joseph Malpass, the
plaintiff, who statal that he was 83 years of age,
and lived in the parish of Bobbington, near
Euviile, ile had rented to house where lie re-
sided for mon, than fifty years, and his father
twenty years previously. The Bobbingtou com-
mon was enclosed about forty.five years ago.
Previous to its enclosure his father kept a cow
and several auldials, which he turned upon it.
At this stage of the proceedings his Honour
inquired what v.ould be the length of the case,
because if it was likely to occupy much time he
would rather adjourn it.
Mr. Bosanquet replied that it was a long case,
and would occupy several hours in hearing.
After consultation, it was agreed to adjourn it
to a special day to be fixed in the future. '
Bullock v. Hand..—At the County Court, on
Thursday last, before Mr. F. Hinsdale, Judge,
this was an action brought by William Bullock,
tailor, High-street, Stourbridge, to recover the
RUB of 15s for a suit of clothes from Joseph
master, Wordsley.
Mr. Stokes appeared for plaintiff, and Mr.
Wall for defendant.
It appears from the evidence of plaintiff that
defendant ordered a suit of clothes which came
to .t 3 15s. They were sent to a Mr. Silas
Muckley. Defendant gave a written order for
the clothes.
Mr. Wall contended that defendant took Mr.
Muckley to buy some clothes at plaintiff's, and
recommended him to plaintiff.
His Honour gave a verdict for tlo full amount
claimed, £3 15s.
Phillips v. Phillips—This was an action
brought by Richaad Phillips, pnblican, of Brier-
ley Hill, to recover the sum of £1 las 91, being
for goods sold and money lent to James Phillips.
Mr. Stokes appeared for plaintiff. After hear.
jug the evidence, his Honour gave a verdict for
plaintiff for 4:1 7s.

nornbro,,k yinpf!s.--Tbis was an action to
recover .0 2s for goods sold to defendant.
Mr. Collis appeared for plaintiff.