The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-07-23 00:00:00

A RIGHT OF WAY CASE.

At Northampton, before Mr. Justice Stephen and a
special jury, the case of " Gunning and another v.
Tanner" has been tried. It was at 4 action of trespass
arising out of a claim to a right of way. The case was
of considerable local interest, the plaintiff Mr. George
William Gunning, being the owner of Horton-park,
and the defendant the vicar of Horton ; while the
right of way claimed by the vicar was a right to pass
through a portion of Horton-park to the parish church
with hearses, carts, and carriages. _

Mr. Mel,lor Q.O. and Mr:A. K. Loyd appeared
for the plaintiffs; Mr. Lawrence, Q.C., Mr. Graham,
and Mr. Lindell for the defendant. We take the fol-
lowing report of the case from The Times •

The little parish church of Horton, with its church-
yard, stands in a corner of Horton-park, close to what
was the principal entrance. At toe entrance to the
park stood a house, formerly occupied as a public.
house, but TIONV used merely as a farm, in the occupa-
tion of Mr. Higgins, who is the other plaintiff in
action. Some of the parishioners were in the habit of
going to church through the park gates. In lB6'i
complete change was made. 'i'he old entrance to the
park was given up, a new drive made in a different
direction, and a haodgate was left where the old park
gate stood. No one appears to have objected to these
changes. There are only some nine or ten houses in
the parish' all of which are the property of the
Gunning family. All went smoothly till 1876,
when the defendant was presented to the living
by Sir H. Gunning, the plaintiff's predecessor
Shortly after his arrival he began to discover
various church rights, as he thought, which had
been usurped or disw•ed. Among other thing-2, he
complained that since the closing of the old park gates
there was no way by which a hearse could be brought
to the church. He also thought he had evidence of
the churchyard having been encroached upon, and he
demanded from Sir Henry Gunning various altera-
tions to remedy what he considered an improper state
of things. Negotiations were carried on first in a
friendly spirit, and afterwards with some warmth. At
last negotiations failed, and the defendant resolved to
enforce the supposed right of way through the pre-
mises of the farm-house by the old park gates. This
he did first by endeavouring to effect an entrance
through Mr. Higgins's gate by the forciblo ViSa of a
coping-stone taken from the to of the wall, as he
weit to c,hureh on the 11th of January last; and
afterwards, on the 26th of January, he came with two
policemen, three labourers, and a timber cart, broke
.down the outside gate of Mr. Higgin's premises by
cutting down one of the gate-posts drove the tiraher
cart across Mr. Higgins's flower-bed, bsoke down a
portion of the wall separating the premises from the
park, rerooved the'haild-gate, drove the cart into the
park; and proceeded to enclose with a post and rail
fence that portion of the park which he believed to
be an encroachment upon the churchyard. The plain-
tiffs did not deny that there was a right of way on
foot to the church through the old parkinte, hut
denied the existence of such a ;•,.,14 as was Cfaime.d by
_
the defendant,.
The jUdi.e left it to the jury to say whether the
right of way claimed by the vicar existed ; and,
secondly, whether, if so, the acts complained of were
done in the bond fide exercise of the supposed right.
The jury found both these points in favour of tho
plaintiffs, and
His Lordship gp,:vp udgmeht accordingly,