Dublin & Kingstown Rly. Company v Bradford

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 07 May 1857
• Date: 07 May 1857
• Court: Court of Common Pleas (Ireland)

Common Pleas.

DUBLIN AND KINGSTOWN RAILWAY COMPANY

and

BRADFORD.

Solly V. Forbes 2 Bro. & Bing. 38.

Goodtitle v. Bayley Cowp. 600.

Smith v. ParkhurstENRENR 3 Atk. 135; S. C., affirmed on appeal, 6 Bro., P. C., 351.

Llewellen v. JerseyENR 11 M. & W. 189.

Dowtie's caseUNK 3 Rep. 10, a.

Ashford v. BowesENR 3 B. & Ad. 457.

Roe v. Vernon 5 E. 51.

White v. OsborneUNK 4 Jur. 941.

Smith v. GallowayENR 5 B. & Ad. 43; S. C., 2 Nev. & Man. 240.

Winter v. WinterENR 5 Hare, 306.

Barton v. DobbsENR 10 C. B. 281.

Doddington's caseUNK 2 Rep. 33, a.

Bozoun's caseUNK 4 Rep. 35, a.

Walsh v. Trevanion 15 Q. B. 734.

Stukeley v. ButlerENR Hob. 171.

COMMON LAW REPORTS. 57 Court, were pleaded to separate parts of the declaration. So here, if you confined your justification to part of the cause of action, you could pay money into Court, in answer to the part not justified. Your suggestion regarding our not making the order without special terms shows that it cannot be made. There is no precedent or authority for this, and the application must be refused with costs. M. T. 1857. CommonPleas. KELLY v. SLATER. DUBLIN AND KINGSTOWN RAILWAY COMPANY v. BRADFORD. E. T. 1857. April 20, 21, 27. May 7. BILL of ExcErnows.-This was an action of ejectment on the Under a deed of conveyance title, tried , before MONAHAN, C. J., at the Nisi Prins Sittings after by the Com missioners of last Trinity Term, and brought to recover the possession of 12 the Incumber edEstates perches and 31- yards of land, situate in the parish of Monkstown Court, certain and county of Dublin. lands and pre mises therein The plaintiffs gave in evidence an indenture of lease, dated the described as demised under 10th of March 1829, whereby Lord De Vesci demised to Edward certain leases were conveyed Armstrong, his executors, administrators and assigns, for the term to the pur chaser, and of ninety-nine years, an undivided moiety of the dwelling-house the deed con tained the fol. and premises then in the possession of the latter, containing 67 lowing excep. tion :-" ex- feet in front and 327 in depth, and bounded by certain abuttals cepting also that portion therein described, subject to the yearly rent of 20 sterling. They thereof, con. alsoproved another lease of the othet undivided moiety of the same raining 12 perches and 31 premises, made to Edward Armstrong, his executors, administrators yards, or thereabouts, traversed by the Dublin and Kingstown Railway" (reserving a right of way), "situate in the town of Kingstown, parish of Monkstown, and county of Dublin, and described in the annexed map, with the appurtenances." The map included a portion of the 12 perches and 3 yards.-Held, that there being, irrespective of the map, an adequate description of what was intended to pass under the deed, the subsequent description appearing on the face of the map, being at variance with the former description, might be rejected, on the principle "falsa demonstratio non nocet," and that it was the duty of the Judge to admit evidence dehors the deed, for the purpose of identifying the particular portion described in the words of the deed. [Errington v. Rorke acted upon.] vox.. 7. 8 L 58 COMMON LAW REPORTS. E. T. 1857. and assigns, by Lord Longford and others, for the same term and CommonPleas. at the same yearly rent. It was admitted on both sides that the & Railway mentioned as one of the boundaries in those deeds was an RAILWA Y v. old tramway that had been since removed. A warrant, under the BRADFORD. seal of the Dublin and Kingstown Railway Company, directed to the Sheriff of the county of Dublin, dated 24th June 1836, was also given in evidence, reciting the intention of the Company to take part of the premises comprised in the above leases, and requirÂÂing the Sheriff to empanel a jury to assess the sums to be paid for the purchase of the lands so intended to be taken by the Company ; and they also proved an inquisition made accordingly, dated the 11th of July 1836, by which the jury found that, under the above leases, the premises marked No. 4 on a map attached to the inquisition, and containing 12 perches and 31 yards, had been so demised ; and further, that a sum of 40 purchase-money and six pence damages ought to be paid by the Company to Edward Armstrong for the premises marked No. 4 ; and they also proved a deed poll executed to the Company by Edward Armstrong, whereby he granted to them the above piece of ground, containing 12 perches and 31 yards, and marked No. 4 on the map annexed to the inquisition, for all his...