Hide Articles List

23 articles on this Page

----UP AND DOWN THE COAST.…

CARMARTHEN.

ABERYSTWYTH.

TOWYN

LLANWRJN.

BALA.'

DOLGELLEY

FFESTINIOG

BARMOUTH-

PWLLHELI.

LLANBEDROG, NEAR PWLLHELI.

PORTMADOC.

PORTMADOC.

PENRHYNDEUDRAETH.

I'CYFOETH-Y-BRENIN

TREGARON.

CARMARTHEN.

LLANDYSSUL

THE UWCH-ALED SHEEPDOG TRIALS.

TRAFFIC RECEIPTS. 1875.

Advertising

| DANCING- ROUND THE MAYPOLE..

News
Cite
Share

DANCING- ROUND THE MAYPOLE.. In the Exchequer Division of the High Court of -Tusti^ T\? ?^ed £ esday> Nov. 10th, the case of Hall, appellant iNottingham and others, respondents, came on for heari^' it was a special case stated for the opinion of the Court. 1 w. Masterman argued for the appellant; Mr Bo?anqae, appeared for the respondents. The case came up on appe*j rom e County Court at Ludlow. It was there Jdecid that a custom for the inhabitants of the pariah of Carbonell to erect a Maypole on the appellant's field dance round and about the same, or otherwise enjoy lawful and innocent recreation at any times in the was good and lawful.âMr Masterman said the action one of trespass. He submitted the custom was not g°°j It was too wide and calculated to deprive the appella0' i all benefit in her property. The Court ought not to es< the doctrines already laid down. It was true since 11. s time the pastime of dancing at all times had beer Df" a reasonable custom. But in Milchamp v. Johns 7 custom to play any rural sports and games was 1 as too general and uncertain, also unreasonable anii* as not specifying what particular sports and »ames intended to be played. Here the custom claimed a e?t1en,a,lye' and should not be stretched further in these «f;. of half-holy-days.âThe Lord Chief Baron.âWhat & & name of the piece? Does the extent of it appear name of the piece ? Does the extent of it appear Masterman. âIt is called the Maypole piece, but I 630 \i tell your lordship the extent. The custom claimed I oust the freeholder of all her rights, a3 the games cl&?J I are unlimited and the time unlimited.âThe Lord I Baron.âAccording to the respondents' view, they | play cricket there day and night all the year round.V Amphlett.âOr quoits and football.âMr Masterman.\ submit this custom is untenable as being beyond all | control, following the analogy of a prescription. & I conclusmn of Mr Ma^terman's argument the Court j 1 he case was concluded on November 15, wheSLijel Bosanquet replied for the respondents. The Lord c p I »aro\said he had considerable doubt chiefly becai^ I hold the custom good would be to destroy the usuf^Lt I the Iand.The authorities were irreconcilable, and the^-sO I must decide between them. On the other hand it much fer the benefit of the inhabitants that they have a recreation ground, that the injury to the indi^)^ was counterbalanced. He was of opinion tb#t-flcl> custom was lawful. Baron Cleasby concurred. Too$^ custom was lawful. Baron Cleasby concurred. Too rIS precision was not to be expected as to w hat exact sPV rot to io t th aHright.t0 "creation, and the Courtgjp in this almost enclosed country that some apace V^ reserved for lawful sports. He could not dfstiâgu^ 5 case from that of village greens. It might formerly use* an open piece of ground which the owner chose to e 1"s but it had bpen subject to this custom.âThe appe dismissed with costs.

GOLD IN MERIONETSHIRE. p