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

LORD ST. LEONARDS v. ASHBURNER.

At the Lewes assizes Lord St. Leonardo hoe hronght an
action against Mr Aolihavner for cutting down trees :dinged
to hove 'wen tie plolititfo. the Ilefriulmit pleade.l that the
trees were cut down upon his Own Mil and freehold, which
was driest; fait the action was really brought to assert
Lord St. Leonard's title to a portion of the Tilgate eatate

It appeared that Lord St. Torsonardo, then Sir
E. Sugden, purchased the Tilgate estate in 1824, and
it was said he bought it from Lord Erskine. From
his lordship taking the title of Lord St. Leonardo, and
from this purchase, it would appear that he was at-
tached to the spot ; and, at all events, ever since 1824
he has been the owner of the estate, and had planted
a belt of trees, some of which had been cut down by
the defendant. In 1834 Lord St. Leonardo left the
Place, and went to reside in Surrey. In 1837 Sir
Edward Sim:den granted a lease to Mr. Cowie for 28
years, and in 1867 he leased the property to a Mr.
Kennett, but the trees were excepted from the lease,
and so Lord St. Lennards sued.
Mr. Pollock, in stating the case to the jury, said the
action was brought really to assert Lord St. Leonard's
title to the property, and it was deeply to be regretted
that the defendant, Mr. Aohburner, should have taken
the unusual course of cutting down trees which could
not be replaced in order to try a title which might just
as well have been tried by the ordinary action of
ejectment.
Lord St. Leonardo, who is about ninety years of age,
was examined as a witness in support of his case, and
gave his evidence with all his characteristic clearness
and energy. He said: I bought this land—the place
which the defendant now claims—in 1824, and I ocem
pied it myself until 1831, when 1 left Sussex and went
to reside in Surrey. I was constantly in the habit of
walking over the land. I sported over it, and it was
planted by my own personal dirictions. Nearly the
whole of the limd which is now planted with trees was
so planted by me. Inside my land I planted a double
row of Scotch firs as a boundary, and there was no
other tree near the pla :e. I never knew the place en-
croached upon by any one until the acts now in que3s
tion. There was a bank also on one side oof the trees,
and there has never been any alteration in the position
of the bank, or the relative position of the trees and
the bank, until the present time.
In cross-examination by Sir G. Honyman, the noble
and learned lord said : I claim the land as having been
bought and paid for by me more than forty years ago.
and I also claim upon my possession of it by myself
and tenants from the time I purchased it until the
present moment. I claim upon my possession as well
as upon my title, for the title by possession is most
important as against outrages such as have been com-
mitted by your client. (Much langhter.)
Sir G. Honyman : You don't claim, then, on account
of your having planted trees upon another man's land,
and then having, soloired a right by twenty years' occu-
pation under the Statute oof Limitations?
Lord St. Leonardo : I don't plant trees upon other
men's land. I planted these trees upon my own land
-upon land which I bought and paid for upwards of
forty years ago, and have ever since occupied by myself
or toy tenan s, until the outrage committed by your
client. (Laughter.)
The learned Baron observed that the Statute of
Limitations was a most salutary law which prevailed
in all civilised nations, thoough somehow it seemed to
be eonsiolered that no man must take advantage of it.
Sir G. Hoonyman : But, as I understand, Lord St.
Leonard's dues not rely upon the Statute of Limita-
tkms i—that is, he does not say " The land was not
mine originally, but it has become so merely by virtue
of the statute.'
Lord St. Leonards : I claim the land as mine, as
having been bought and paid for by toe; but I also
claim, as against your client, by reason of my long
possession and occupation of it, as I have a richt to do,
eeeing that your client has no right or title beyond
those acts of exercise of possession of which I complain.
In answer to further flllefltlollB, the noble and learned
lord stated that the bank was the boundary between
his land and Mr. Ashburner's, and (though there was
a considerable opinion in the court Olathe was entitled
to half the bank) he did not claim it but he claimed
the land inside the bank, and the trees in question
were inside the honk.
Sir G. Honynian : Pray, Lord St. Leonardo, have
you your title-deeds here?
Lord St. Leonardo No, I kept them away pur-
posely, in order to try the rule of law—one of the most
wholesome and valuable of our rules of law—that a
man is not foreed to produce his title-deeds to his anta-
gonist in order to enable him to pick holes in his title
to land if which he has long been in possesoion. that
is an admirable and valuable rule of law, and in ac-
cordance with it I have not produced my deeds, and
decline to do so.
Mr. Pollock said his noble and learned client, in
taking this course, had acted entirely in accordance
with the opinion of his counsel.
Being further pressed, Lord St. Leonardo mid, with
much emphasis: I can swear this, that I am not and
never have been in possession of a single acre of land
in the county which I have not bought and paid for.
The noble and learned lord went on to state that he
had made several purchases in Sussex. First he
bought a small portion of land, and amused himself
with planting it. Then he bought Lord Erskine's
estate and alsr some further land.
Being further pressed, the noble and learned lord