The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1883-07-14 00:00:00

4ociti attb gistrict getvs.

THE OLI)SWINFOHD LAND DISPUTE.

WALI ON AND OTIIERS V. TALBOT.

In the NW Prins C,urt at Worcester Assizes on
Tuesday, before Mr. Justice Butt, this trial again
came on. It was heard at the list Assizes, when
the Court decidtd for the plaintiff, Lut the decision
was overruled by the Superior Court on a point of
law. The plaintiff, sought to recover possession
of l•ind situated at Heath Lane, Oldswinford, for
sometime occupied by Thomas Smith, whose ten-
an -y expired in July, 1378. The defendant alleged
preeent possesson, and denied the plaintiffs' title.
Mr. Anstie, Q.C., aud Mr. Pearson appeared for the
plaintiffs, and Mr. Jelf, Q C., and Mr. 80-anquet,
Q.O , for the defendant.
Mr. Aus ie, in opening the case, said no one could
dispute that the late Mr. John Walton was at one
time the owner of the land in dispute, having
boul,ht it us part of an estate in 1843. Subse-
quntly plaintiff conveyed to Mr. Thomas Srnitli,
the tenant, a portion of the land for the sum of
£250. Smith paid Xiso in cash, and obt dried a
mortgage fiodi Walton for the remainder.
It was contended on beha!f of the plaintiff that
the laud in dispute tva not part of that conveyed
to Smith, and in fact that the latter contiimed to
r,nt the other portion. The question at is3ue was
,A }tether Smith evir bought or acquired the inde-
pendent rights ovtr the land now uncler claim. Mr.
Walton died in 1868, and his es•ate descended to
the present plaintiffs. Smith courdnued to pay the
rent as tenant, together with the interest on the
mortgage. But at a later periol plaintiffs desiriito•
to realise, S:nith found a person to advance the
money due on tne mortgage. anl subsequently re—
sit the property to Mr. Taleot, the defendant.
After the sale the defendant took paisession of the
deputed piece of land, claiming that lie had bcught
i lon 6inith.

_ _ .....
After some tormal evidence by Mr. Wooldritigp,
surveyor, Stourbridge, Mr. J. Barlow, of llea h
Lane, Oldswinfori, was called to speak to the con-
dition of the land under successive owners,
In cross—examination the NN tnes admitted that
Smith converted a portion of flit.. proper:y he bought
from Walton into a public-hous-, and about the
same time took in part of an adjoioin3 field, which
he enclosed with a fence.
Mr. Austie said he was unable to call rnith, as
he was dead. _ _

Mrs. Millership, daughter a the late John Wal-
ton, sp ,ke of the arrangement which she understood
existed bet% cen her father and the defendant as
tenant.

Mr. Ansti then put in the conveyance of the pro-
perty from Walton to Smith, dated 22nd July,
1848. The document recited that, the land con—
veyed contained 1,503 square yards, with cet tain
tent ments, and was bounded on each side by Mr.
Walton's land. The mortgage was also put in and
the receipts of interest from Smith to Walton. in
June, 1878, Smith had paid off the mortgage, and
then sold his own property; but he asked Mrs.
Millership if he might continue to occupy the other
land at the same rent, and he would agree to give
it up (al the shortest notice at any time. Witness
consent,d, and Smith occupied the land as tenant
up to Christmas, 1879. _ . _

Mr. Jelf, addressing the Court for the defence,
argued that Smith had been in actual possession of
the strip of land since 1849. He treated it as part
of his own property, building upon it and exercis-
ing the riOits of ownership, and paying rent only
for a field which was not built upon. The strip of
land was not conveyed to Smith by the deed of
cenveyance produced, but by a subsequent arrange-
ment. Mr. Smith wished to improve his property,
and Mr, Walton agreed to sell him a strip of land
containing 719 yards for £7O. The agreement was
unde in Mai ch, 1819, but the money was not paid,
becans: Mr. Wal.ori told Mr. S.; ith he need nut
pay the money until he was as d.
Witnesses werJ called in su.
.)ort f Mr. Jeli's
statement.

The Judge in summing up, sa:d it wAs perfectly I
eear that at one time before July, 1848, &nub •
occupied the land in dispute as tenant, and paid
rent for it. In that year Smith bought a portion
of the land,'and it was contended that the piece in
question was sold to him by a separate agreement
for .£7O. There could be no doubt th it negotiations
took place between Walton and Smith, but. it was
for the jury to decide whether thoy had resulted in
an actual sale. Mr. Wright, a surveyor, had been
taken to valae the land, and a piece was mapped
out of the value of
.270. It was clear that it was
the inttntion that. Smith should become the put'.
th.tser,
and he might have obtained the right of
owner without having paid the money. It. that ;
were proved te the satisfaction of the jury then '•
Mr. Talbot's claim weis complete. What appeared •
to be the m ,st probable and business-like arrange-
moat between the parties was that Smith was to
have the piece of land transferred to him as soon as
he could pay for it, and that the conveyance would