The Times, Monday, Feb 20, 1871; pg. 11; col D
CARLISLE, FEB. 18.
CIVIL COURT. - (Before Mr. Justice WILLES.)
HINDE V. SHEPHERD AND OTHERS.
This was an action of trespass for pulling up fences to try the plaintiff's
right to a piece of land at the village of Flimby. The defendants (whose case
was lately stated in our columns in a letter from Mr. SHEPHERD) pleaded that the
land on which the trespass was alleged to have been committed was a village
green, on which the inhabitants had a right from time immemorial to play at
football and other games.
Mr. HOLKER, Q.C., and Mr. KEMPLAY appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. QUAIN, Q.C.,
Mr. CROMPTON, and Mr. S. P. FOSTER for the defendants.
The plaintiff, it appeared, bought the plot of ground in question, situate in
the middle of the village of Flimby, in 1870, from the then owner, a gentleman
named WALKER. Before the conveyance had been executed by the vendor's leave the
plaintiff fenced the ground round and placed building materials upon it for the
purpose of building a house. The inhabitants (as stated, at the instigation of
the defendant SHEPHERD, who is the incumbent of the parish) pulled down the
fences and scattered the building materials. After this the plaintiff met the
defendant SHEPHERD, who warned him that his parishioners claimed a right of
common over the land, which was the village green, for the purpose of playing
football and other games upon it. The plaintiff then went to the vendor, who
executed the conveyance of the land to him, with unqualified covenants of title.
The plaintiff thereupon rebuilt the fences and brought more lime and building
materials upon the land. The defendants, who were chiefly colliers residing in
the village, seeing this, went to the green and, kicking a football over the
fence, began a game at football as the plaintiff was superintending the putting
up of his posts and rails; and as the game progressed to and fro they knocked
down and pulled up the fences which interfered with it. These were the
trespasses complained of. The trespasses were admitted, and the only question
contested was whether or not the defendants had an immemorial right to use the
green for the purpose of village games as stated.
The case is only part heard, and was adjourned to-night to Monday morning at