The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-05 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS-(THIS DAY.

(Sittings in Banco, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
WILDE, Mr. Justice MAULE, Mr. Justice WILLIAMS,
and Mr. Justice TALFOURD.
KIDGELL V. MOORE.
This action was tried before Mr. Baren Rolfe at the
last Berks Assizes, when a verdict was found for the
plaintiff; damages, one shilling.
Mr. WHATELY moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial had,
on the ground that there was no evidence in the cause to
go to the jury. He also moved an arrest of judgment
on the ground that a good cause of action did
not appear on the face of the declaration.
The action was to try a right of way. The plaintiff it
appeared was seized of one-seventh of a certain close
called Ewin's Wood, as tenant in common, which at the
time of the act complained of, was in the possession of
a tenant named Reddings, and the plaintiff claimed a
right of way from this close over a certain other close
belonging to the defendant to the public highway. The
breach was—the defendant knowing these premises and
intending to injure the reversionary estate and interest of
the plaintiff, had wrongfully and unlawfully fastened a
certain gate standing across the way in question,
and prevented his making use of it. The
only important plea in the case was the traverse
of the right. It appeared, that in 1812, the father of
the plaintiff Kidgell, purchased Ewin's Wood; which at
that time, and es long as was within the memory of the
oldest witnesses, was covered with trees and underwood,
which were cut down at the usual iatervals. After
the purchase old Kidgell began to grub up the ground,
and convert it into arable land, a process which occupied
seven or eight years, but was completed about 1822, for in
that year he let it to a tenant named Clarke, who occupied
it until 1831. In 1832 Clarke gave it up to Kidgell,
the present plaintiff; who occupied it up to the period of
the trial. On the part of the plaintiff the case was that
old Kidgell bad drawn timber along the road whenever
it was cut down. This was not denied by the defendant;
but be contended, if there was any such user of road,
the evidence only went to show a limited and not a
general right; for all that was provedjbeyond the convey.
slice of timber was, that on one or two instances, while
the ground was being cleared, some crops of corn and
beans had been carried along the road, and also that the
tenant Clarke had ridden over it. Upon the point of
arrest of judgment, the Learned Counsel contended that
no such obstruction as that alleged could, under any
circumstances, be injurious to a person who had *rever-
sionary interest in the land. It it were so, an action
could not now be maintained by the reversioner, but no
lapse of time would debar him from asserting his right
when ho came into possession of the property.
Their Lordships took time to consider their decision.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
TOWNSEND V. ALDRIDGE.
Mr. WATSON moved for a rule nisi calling upon the
justices of the county of Huntingdon to show cause why
a mandamus should not issue commanding them to hear
the appeal of Mr. Thomas Aldridge against an order in
bastardy. The case was heard at the petty sessions of
St. Neot's, on the 17th of May, and Mr. Aldridge
was adjudged to be the putative father of the bastard
child of one Jane Townsend. Mr. Aldridge gave the
female verbal notice that he should appeal against the
decision, but when the case came before the justices at
Huntingdon two objections were taken to the notice, first
that it was not in writing, and secondly that, although
the adjudication had been made when the no:idea was
given, yet the justices had not signed the order; and the
justices determined that the notice was not sufficient. Now
it was quite clear, by the decisions of the Court in the case
of " The King and the Justices of Surrey" and " The King
and the Justices of Stanhope," reported in " Barnwell
and Adolphus," that where an Act of Parliament required
that a reasonable notice should be given of an appeal,
it did nut necessarily follow that it should be in writing;
while with regard to the other objection, that the order
had not been signed, the fourth section of the 7 and 8
Vitt., chap. 101, simply required the notice to be given
within 24 hours after the adjudication.
Mr. Justice PATTESON granted a rule nisi.
Rule nisi accordingly.
ASHWORTH V. SHEPPARD AND ANOTHER.
Mr. HATHERTON was instructed to apply to the Court
for a:rule to show cause why a writ of prohibition should
not issue in this case, directed to the Judge at the County
Court of Lancashire, at Haslington. The case arose
out of a replevin suit, and he moved upon the joint
affidavit of the defendant Sheppard and his attorney,
who stated that the defendant, the heir at-law of one
Judeth Tattersall, and claimed to be the customary
successor to some copyhold property which the deceased
lady had held under the lord of the manor of Accring-
ton. Tne tenants, however, disputed his right, on the
ground that a document had been lodged in the
Consistory Court of Chester, by certain parties
named on the face of it, and purporting to be the last
will and testament of Mr. Judeth Tattersall; but a caveat
had been entered against probate on the part of Mr.
Sheppard, and a suit on the subject was now pending in
the Consistory Court. Mr. Sheppard was, therefore,
forced to distrain on the tenants in possession of the
property to recover the rent, and six of them had com-
menced replevin suits in the County Court, to recover
damages for the distraint. At the trial, it was not only
shown, but admitted, that the suits involved questions
relating to property of a freehold character, and it was
contended that the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter.
The Judge, however, ruled otherwise, and adjudicated
in favour of the plaintiff, observing that by the 121st
section of the County Court Act, the defendants had the
power to remove the cases into a superior court on
certain conditions. This case, however, had nothing to
do with that section; it came rather within the provirions
of the 58th section, which strictly prohibited the judges
of county courts taking cognizance of cases involving
questions of right to real property, even though the
damages or amount in dispute were under 201., and as that
section made the decision in this case voidable, the de-
fendant was anxious to have the point argued and decided
in one of the cases only.
Mr. Justice PATTESON thought there was a distinction
between the two sections, and the cases which each con-
templated, and asked if the rent distrained for accrued
subsequently to the death of Mr. Tattersall.
Mr. HATHERTON replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Take a rule.

Buie nisi.