The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-15 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE

HOME CIRCUIT—CROYDON, AUG. 13.
HOLMES V. NEWLANDS.
This was an action of trespass of a very extraordinary
character. The declaration charged that the defendant,
who is a minister of the Scotch church, had broken and
entered a certain close, and destroyed the walls and
buildings therein.
To this the defendant pleaded that one Wm. Hedger
had a legal title to the close in question, and that he had
acted as his servant.
To this plea the plaintiff rejoined that the trespass
was made after the passing of a certain Act of Parlia-
ment, and that the claim of William Hedger did not
accrue within twenty years of the passing of that Act.
The defendant then pleaded that there had been no
adverse possession according to the terms of the Act in
question, and upon this issue was joined.
Messrs. Thesiger, Platt, Clarkson, and Chambers
were for the plaintiff ; Mr. Channell and Mr. Peacock
for the defendant.
Mr. THESIGER addressed the Jury, and aid that he
should have to lay before them, on behalf of the plaintiff,
circumstances which were certainly of a most extraor-
dinary character. The defendant, in the prosecution of
some real or pretended claim to property held by the
plaintiff, had taken upon himself to commit an act of a
most wanton and outrageous description. The Learned
Counsel then proceeded to detail the facts of the case,
and called the following witnesses :—.
Edward Beale deposed that he was groom to the
plaintiff. On the 27th June, his master, who resided in
West-square, Lambeth, was from home, and he was in-
structed by his mistress to prepare the phaeton to take
her a short distance into the country. He did so accord-
ingly, and before he went, he locked up and secured, as
usual, the stable and coach-house, which were near his
master's house at one corner of the square. When he
g, he found that the stable
h
evening,
ncompletely pulled down and
and
durtnhee returned
reommiese ign
hadthe ebveee
destroyed, and were lying in a heap of ruins.
Ellen Quish deposed that she was also a servant to
the plaintiff. On the day in question she was alone in
the house after her mistress had left to go into the
country. Soon afterwards she observed seven men go
to the house of the defendant, which was at a short dis-
tance from her master's. They were armed with saws,
pickaxes, and shovels. Soon afterwards, in consequence
of something which occurred, she went up to her mis-
tress's bed-room, and looked into the stable-yard,
and she then saw several men on the roof of the
stable and coach house, who were in the act of
pulling down the premises. She then went down, and
found that the gates of the stable-yard had been fastened,
and she broke them open and went in. By this time
a great mob had assembled, and the police had arrived.
She then got upon the roof of the stable and found se•
veral men at work upon it, cutting the rafters and tearing
up the lead. At this time the defendant was in his own
garden, and he said to the men, " Go on ; never mind
that woman who is on the roof." He also told her she
would remember it if she did not mind. At this time
one of the men told the defendant that if the men kept
on it would endanger their lives, and witness's too ; and
the defendant said, " Work below," and wished them
to go on. They, however, refused to do so. Soon af-
terwads Inspector Field arrived, and witness remained
till her master came home.
Richard Shoobridge said that he was present and saw
the men at work. They sawed through the rafters, and
then dropped them through the sky-lights. The de-
fendant was encouraging them all the time, and told
them to go on, for that he was determined to have the
place down. Ultimately there was not a portion of the
chaise house or stable left standing-.
Thomas John Jones corroborated the evidence of the
preceeding witnesses, and said that upon his asking the
defendant how he could adopt such a proceeding in the
absence of the master of the premises, he replied that he
had taken the opportunity in order to prevent any colli-
sion from taking place.
Mr. Charle:Field, an inspector of police, deposed
that he was sent for upon the occasion in question. He
found a great crowd assembled, and the men were in the
act of demolishing the premises. Observing the defen-
dant walking in his own garden he went to him, and
asked him what was the matter, and he replied that was
his business. He then said that the property belonged
to him, and he would have the stable down. At this
time one of the labourers called out that if they con-
tinued working, the servant's life would be endangered.
The defendant immediately told them to continue their
work. Witness then told the defendant that if anything
happened he should hold him responsible, and he would
take him into custody. He also gave the labourers a
similar warning, and they desisted from working.
Cross-examined—The woman said that she would
defend her master's property. He did not hear the de-
fendant tell her to go down from the top of the stable.
Sidebotham, another inspector of police, proved that
the defendant told him that the place in question was
a public right of way, and that he was justified in de-
stroying the buildings, and when he told him that he
had better adopt a legal course, he said he was quite
justified in what he did, and that he was acting
under the advice of counsel.
Two surveyors were then called, who estimated the
actual amount of damage done to the premises at 128/
A number of witnesses were then called, who proved
that the land on which the stable had been built had
been used and occupied with the plaintiff's house since
1803, and that there had never been any interruption to
that occupation.
Mr. CHANNEL addressed the Jury for the defendant,
and observed that in his client's presence he must ex-
press his regret that he had been led to commit the
violence proved against him. It was quite unjusti-
fiable and unnecessary, and had a tendency to distract
the minds of the Jury from the real question at
issue. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to state
that the plaintiff, by his own plea, admitted that he
had no legal title to the property in question,
but he took advantage of a recent Act of Parlia-
ment, the object of which was to protect parties who
had been in the undisturbed possession of property a
certain number of years, against the claim even of the
rightful owner to it, and pleaded that because it had
been in his possession a certain tinie, that therefore he
was not to be disturbed. The Act of Parliament in
question, however, required that the possession should
be distinct and exclusive and adverse, in every sense of
the word. Although he must admit that the plaintiff
had proved an occupation of the place in question, he
should be enabled to show that other parties had also
used it, and he should be prepared to contend that there
was not such an adverse possession as the law required
to enable a party to take advantage of this Act of
Parliament.

Same witnesses were then called, who stated that
they had seen rubbish deposited in the place in question
upon several occasions. No material evidence was,
however, adduced, in any way affecting the plaintiff's
case.

Lord DENMAN having briefly commented upon the
evidence, said he should first call upon the jury to sa,
whether they considered, upon the facts, that an ad-
verse possession of the premises, in bar of the original
title to them, had been proved ?
The jury almost immediately returned an answer in
the affirmative, adding that they found for the plaintiff.
Lord DENMAN said that the only question that then
remained was the amount of damages. His Lordship
then, with some warmth, proceeded to observe that this
was not the only case that had come before him during
the present assize in which parties bad chosen to assert
their assumed rights in the most violent and extraor-
dinary manner. He did not know what would be the
result if persons were to be allowed to endeavour to
establish any right they might imagine themselves to
possess by knocking down and destroying the property
of their neighbours. He was every day in the receipt
of letters from poor persons, complaining that they were
prevented from enjoying property that belonged to
them, and if they were to be told that they had a right
by force and destruction to assert their claims, violence
would be spread abroad, and the land would be deluged
with outrage. He was very glad to hear that. the
Counsel, both for the defendant and the plaintiff, con-
curred in the opinion as to the lawless character of the
proceeding the defendant had adopted. It must be
understood that no man, be his claim or title what it
might, had the right to go with the strong hand and
destroy his neighbour's property ; if a party was
aggrieved the law afforded a remedy, and such violent
proceedings as these could never be permitted.
The Jury, after a very short deliberation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages 2001.
AUGUST 14.
THE QUEEN V. FLOWER.
This was an indictment instituted by the Corpora-
tion of the City of London against the defendants
Farnham and Henry Flower for a misdemeanour.
casAelwr.aLs Aowneawddhircehssetdhethpe Jury,ublic a
would nd
lsoaoi the
with
hstehnet
greatest interest. The prosecution was instituted by
the Corporation of the City of London, or rather by
the Lord Mayor as the Conservator of the river Thames.
The circumstances out of which the present prosecution
arose were these. The Jury were aware that a very
considerab:e excavation was going on in the river for
the purpose of forming the site of the New Houses of
Parliament, and that a large embarkment had been
made with a view to the erection of a coffer dam. The
defendants were contractors to Messrs. John and
Henry Lee, the original contractors for the erections of
the buildings, and their undertaking was to remove and
carry away the soil and rubbish produced by the ex-
cavation. It would be shown that the defendants had
taken upon themselves, from time to time, to have large
quantities of this rubbish conveyed to a spot near a
public-house, called the Red House, at Battersea, and
that by their directions it was there cast into the river.
Mr. THESIGER, for the defendant, said that there
could be no doubt that it was an offence. He would
not attempt to deny that fact.
Lord DENMAN—May I ask what answer the defen-
dant, intend to make? Ai to the law, there ,n h. no
doubt respecting
Mr. THESIGER—We do not intend to divine the
law ; but our answer is, that we havo never authorised