Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

17 articles on this Page

ANCLEm COMMON RIGHTS.

News
Cite
Share

ANCLEm COMMON RIGHTS. CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. On Wednesday, the Court of Appeal, con- sisting of Lords Justices A. L. Smith, Rigby, and Collins, had before them the appeal of the defendants, in the case of Roberts and others v- Thomas and others, from a judg- ment of Mr Justice Wright, who found that certain lands in Anglesey were common rights. The plaintiffs were Mr G. E. Ro- berts, of London; Mr John-Roberts, Mr J. R. Jones, and Mr Owen Rowlands, all of An- glesey and Mr Humphrey Ellis, of Bangor, North Wales; and they sued on behalf of themselves and also of all other owners and occupiers of Hands and tenements in the commote of Llivon, Anglesey, for an in- junction to restrain the defendants. from in- terfering with their alleged) common rights over certain pasture lands, which the de- fendants contended belonged to them. The. defendants are Lewis Thomas, Mary Hughes, and William Thomas, all of Anglesey, and the Welsh Explosives Company, Ltd., of 3, Peel Buildings, Birmingham, to whom a portion of the land in question has been let by the other defendants for the purpose of erecting an explosives .factory. It ap- peared that the plaintiff, Mr G. E. Roberts, is the owner of certain messuages, lands, and tenements, known as Pentretraeth and Tynewydd, in the parish of Llanfaelog, in the commote of Llivon, and that the plain- tiffs, Messrs John Roberts, John Jones, and Owen Rowlands, are the owners of certain messuages, lands, and tenements, known as Dowyn, in the parish of Llanfihangel-yn- Nhowyn and at the trial they claimed they were respectively entitled in respect of their messuages and tenements to (a) common of pasture over aN the commonable cattle levant and couchant upon their respective lands in and over the waste or common of about 1300 acres known as Towyn Trewan, in the parishes of Llechylched, Llanfihangel- yn-Nhowyn, and Llanfaelog, in the com- mote of Llivon at all times of -the year; (b) to cut and take as of right and without in- terruption from the said common, turf and furze for fuel, drift sand or seaweed for manure, to be consumed and used in and upon their messuages respectively, and to take and dig in like manner sand for repair- ing the buildings upon their lands. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, who claimed to be owners of the common or part of it, had injured and disturbed them in their use and enjoyment of their rights by wrongfully enclosing a part of the land. The defendants had threatened to continue and to extend the enclosure, and to erect build- ings or manufactories upon the waste,and the plaintiffs therefore asked for an injunc- tion restraining them from doing so. Mr Justice Wright at the trial found for the plaintiffs, and granted them the injunction. From this decision the defendants .appealed on the ground that there was no evidence of plaintiffs' alleged rights which could stand in law; and, further, that the learned judge was wrong in his interferences of law and of fact. Mr Jelf, Q.C., and Mr Parker appeared for the appellants; while Mr. Rawiinson, Q.C., and Mr. B. Roberts were counsel for the res- pondents. Mr. Jelf, in support of the appeal, went over the evidence given at the trial, and sub- mitted there was nothing in it to show that there was a cattle user by the plaintiffs, over the land in dispute. Lord Justice Smith: Was the action tried in Middlesex ? Mr Jelf Yes, my lordf; and there were a number of Welsh witnesses called, whose evidence had to be interpreted. Lord Justice Smith: It is a monstrous thing this case should have been tried 111 Middlesex. It is wholly a Welsh case, and should therefore have been tried in Wales. Mr Jelf The plaintiffs laid the venue, my lord; it was their own choice. The learned counsel then contended that with regard to the pieces of land alleged to be owned by the plaintiffs, not one of the rights claimed by them had been established by itself; and that the learned judge in the court below, in deciding the case, had taken the strength in evidence of one oase to make up the deficiency in another. At this stage the court rose. The hearing of the appeal was resumed on Thursday. Mr Jelf, Q.C., continuing his argument in support of the appeal, submitted that each one of the pieces of land must be taken alone in order to see whether certain occupiers had common rights over it. The plaintiffs had obtained a certain class of wit- neeees to come and say that they took turf and sand from the common in regard to which the present action had risen. That evidence, which was of a ragged nature, would not support their case, and so pre- vent the defendants from allowing a fac- tory to be built on the land in question. Lord Justice Rigby: But you do not deny that the plaintiffs have a perfect right to take up all the evidence they can ? Mr Jelf said that was so, but his observa- tion meant that the evidence showed that the yhad not got a strong case, especially when they put only one plaintiff in the box at the triatf. > He wished to emphasise the fact that that particular witness knew the least about the case of any of the plaintiffs. In conclusion, Mr Jelf contended tne plain- tiffs' case had not been made out in respect of any one of the pieces of land or in respect of any one of their alleged rights, and th Lt judgment should have been entered for the defendants. Mr Parker followed on the same side. Mr Rawlinson, Q.O., in support of the judgment in the court below, said that the plaintiffs in this case relied upon certain facts which showed that they were entitled to certain rights over the two commons, and recemt Pegal proceedings in 1868 showed that if any owner or occupier in either of the three parishes adjoining the two com- mons exercise common rights on one he was entitled to exercise those rights on the sec- ond common. Owners and occupiers who paid quit rents to the Crown in respect of the three parishes named had been entitled to common rights over the two commons, and all of the plaintiffs in this case paid quit rents to the Crown. There were entitled to pasture rights for sheep and cattle,'and to turf and furze for litter and manure in vir- tue of their paying quit rents to the Crown. All the four plaintiffs were occupiers or owners who paid those quit rents. Lord Justice Smith inquired whether it had been proved that the plaintiffs paid quit rents to the Crown ? Mr Rawlinson said that had been proved at the trial. Mr Jelf said that was so; he admitted the proof of this. Mr Rawlinson said that at the trial he called two owners of the farms and a part owner of a third farm to establish this fact as to the payment of quit rents to the Crown. The evidence showed undoubtedly that rights of common were exercised by some persons for thirty years before the Jegal proceedings taken in 1868, and since then those rights had not been disturbed. Where there was evidenc3 on both sides, as in this case, he thought that their lordships would be inclined to take the view of the learned judge in the court below, who had heard the witnesses. At this stage the court rose. On Friday, judgment was delirered. !:0.r1 Justice Smith. or1 the conclusion of the arguments on both tins was an appeal from Mr Justice Wright, who had J tried the case in London with Welsh witnes- ses and an interpreter. Why the plaintiffs brought the action there he could not under- stand all he could say was that if an appli- cation had been made by the defendants to have the action tried on circuit it would certainly have been-acceded to. Mr Justice Wright had found for the plaintiffs, and had granted an injunction restraining the defendants from doing certain things. The case was tried without a jury, and the de- fendants asked that the judgment might be set aside. Upon what legal ground could they ask that, assuming the case had been tried before the jury? Having read the summing up of the learned judge he was of opinion that he had never read a more per- fect direction of law than had been given in this case, and he defied any judge on the bench to give a more accurate direction. There being no misdirection as regards the law he came to the complaint of the appel- lants that the action was not really brought by the plaintiffs for themselves, but that it was brought by them at the instance of some lodging-house keepers to prevent the defendants from building an explosives fac- tory upon the locus in quo. There was ab- solutely no evidence of that, but if he were asked whether it was probable he should say that it was; because he could not con- ceive a more objectionable thing to lodging- house keepers than an explosives factory;, but as there was no evidence in support of the allegation it could not have no effect upon the case. Here they found an ancient common of about 1300 acres; there was some sort of evidence given to show that it was a common from the time of Edward 1. but whether it was or not he did not know. At any rate, it had been a waste., for many years. About 1868 the then Bishop of Ban- gor set up certain claims over the common, and the Attorney-General of the day, on be- half of the Crown, agreed that the matter should be referred to arbitration, the par- ties not being able to agree on a special case for the opinion of the Hiprh Court. The re- sult was that both parties were awarded by the arbitrator a portion of the land, specifying that they should both give up the rights of the soil. In 1882 the defendant, Mr Thomas, purchased' 700 acres of the waste land at £ 1 an acre, showing that it was not very valuable. Having done that, he erected a house upon the land and also put up a fence. That brought up the ire of the owners of the land surrounding the common, and in 1884 an action was brought in the Chancery Division, and it lasted until 1888, when Thomas submitted to judgment. The result of that judgment was to give the plaintiffs in the action the right of common over the locus in quo. In 1897, Thomas sold a portion of his land to the Welsh Ex- plosives Company, whereupon the present action was brought in the name of the four plaintiffs, and they set up that they were entitled to have rights of common in the locus in quo, and the question the Court of Appeal had now to determine was whether there had been evidence to lead the learned judge below to come to the conclusion that they had those rights of common they claimed. It was suggested by the defend- ants that their evidence was misconceived and did not apply to the present case. But with that contention he could not agree. In his opinion there was plenty of evidence to establish "the rights which the plaintiffs claimed. Mr Justice Wright was therefore right in his finding on the evidence and ab- solutely correct in his application of the law to the facts, and his judgment must there- fore be upheld on every point, and the ap- peal dismissed with costs. Lords Justices Rigby and Collins con- curred.

A Cemetery for Bethesda.

A REMARKABLE STORY.

CRICCIGTH

IMPORTANT 8 A LE OF JEWELS…

Advertising

The School Attendance Problem

Electric Lighting at Colwyn…

Dolgelley County Court.

Advertising

Death of a Local Doctor.

Carnarvon Agricultural Show…

PATENT RECORD.

[No title]

Advertising

I Bangor and Beaumaris Board…

Advertising