Boyle v Mulholland

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 14 January 1860
• Date: 14 January 1860
• Court: Exchequer (Ireland)

Exchequer.

BOYLE

and

MULHOLLAND.

Railway v. BradfordIR 7 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 57, 624.

Roe v. Lidwell 9 Ib. 184.

Llewellyn v. Earl of JerseyENR 11 M. & W. 189.

Barton v. DawesENR 10 C. B. 261.

Stukeley v. ButlerENR Hob. 171.

Doddington's caseUNK 2 Rep. 33 a(n.)A.

Dowtie's caseUNK 3 Rep. 10 a.

Dublin and Kingstown Railway v. BradfordIR 7 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 57, 624.

Roe v. LidwellIR 9 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 184.

Andrew Ognel's caseUNK 4 Rep. 50 a.

Ashforth v. BowerENR 3 B. & Ad. 453.

Morell v. Fisher 4 Ex. Rep. 591.

Wood v. Rowcliffe 6 Ex. Rep. 407.

Lambe v. ReastonENR 5 Taunt. 207.

Attorney-General v. ChambersENR 4 De g., M. & G. 206.

Reg. v. Musson 4 Eng. Jur., N. S., 111.

Roe v. VernonENR 5 East, 51.

Goodtitle v. Southern 1 Mau. & Sel. 299.

Lord Waterpark v. FennellIR 5 Ir. Com. Law Rep.120.

Evans v. AngellENR 26 Beav. 202.

Ricketts v. Turquand 1 H. L. Cas. 490.

Llewellyn v. Lord JerseyENR 11 M. & W. 189.

The Dublin and Kingston Railway v. BradfordIR 7 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 57, 624.

Roe v. LidwellIR 9 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 184.

150 COMMON LAW REPORTS. M. T. 1859. Exchequer. BOYLE v. MULHOLLAND Nov. 19. IL T. 1860. Jan. 14. (Exchequer). A deed of con- ACTION for the wrongful conversion of sea-weed ; and the defence veyance from the Incum- traversed the property of the plaintiff therein. The case was tried bered Estates Court granted before FITZGERALD, B., and a special jury, at the Nisi Prius Sit " All that part of B., together tings after last Trinity Term ; and the following were the facts with the kelp- upon which the dispute arose :-The townland of Ballagan, lying shore, contain- ing 443 acres, and described along the shore of Carrickfergus Lough, had, with another town- in the annexed land called Ballavarty, belonged to the late Marquis of Anglesea, map ; together with the sea- and were on his death, in 1857, sold in the Incumbered Estates weed cast on the said kelp- Court, when the defendant bought a portion of the townland shore, subject to the tenan- of Ballagan. From the shore of this townland were obtained large cies in the schedule an- quantities of sea-weed ; some of which grew upon the rocks, and vexed." some was cast by the action of the tide upon the shore between The map annexed to high and low-water mark. This latter description was usually this deed drew the boundary known as " in-blown sea-weed ;" and the right to take this was the line along the high-water subject of the present controversy. mark upon the shore ; and the It appeared, on the part of the plaintiff, that the tenants of Bal description of the kelp-shore lavarty and other towniands had been in the habit of getting in the sle tallied Portions of this ``in-blown sea-weed, " by the permission of the in measure- Marquis during his lifetime. That he (plaintiff ) had been a ment with the deed, suppos- tenant of portion of Bailey arty to the Marquis during his life, ing the boun dary line to and since his death to the purchaser thereof ; and had been, as be the high water mark.- such, in the habit of taking this sea-weed from the shore of Balla Held, that pa rol evidence gan for the last forty or fifty years, until he had been stopped by was not admis sible to show the defendant. that the words " kelp-shore " would include the portion between high and low-water mark, the terms of the deed describing the subject-matter of the grant with sufficient certainty. Held also, that the shore between high and low-water mark did not pass by the deed. That the " kelp-shore " was, by reference to the map and schedule, rendered a certain and specific description, and that the maxim offalsa designatio did not apply. him. The parts of this deed material to be consisdered were as folÂlow :-" We the Commissioners, &c., do grant, &c., all that part " of the lands of Ballagan, together with Kelp-shore, situate in the "parish of Carlingford, barony of Dundalk, and county of Louth, "containing together 443a. lr. 5p., statute measure, or thereabouts, "and described in the annexed map; together with all sea-weed " cast or deposited by the sea, on the said Kelp-shore, and all " rights, &c. ; to hold the same, &c., subject to the leases and " tenancies referred to in the schedule hereunto annexed." In the schedule referred to by this deed, the several denominations of the land purchased by the defendant, with their quantities, and the names of their respective occupiers, were set out. One of these was described therein as " Kelp-shore." Its quantity was described as 9a. 2r. lip., which, with the quantities of the several other denominations, made up the whole number of acres menÂtioned in the body of the deed. Under the occupation...