JACK, Lessee of DAWSON v Mƒ€™INTYRE and WIFE

JurisdictionIreland
CourtHouse of Lords (Ireland)
Judgment Date08 Apr 1845

H. of Lords.

JACK, Lessee of DAWSON
and

Mƒ€™INTYRE and WIFE.

552* CASES AT LAW. 1845. H. of Lords. 3En Ibt Vouft of 34410. JACK, Lessee of DAWSON, V. M'INTYRE and WIFE. CASES AT LAW. 553 "his heirs and assigns, with liberty to him and them to cut, dig for, and " carry away the same, freed and indemnified from all manner of " trespasses." He then gave in evidence several renewals of that lease, down to the renewal under which the defendant held. The lessor of the plaintiff also produced the agent of the Castle Dawson estate, who proved that he had been agent for that estate since the year 1819 ; that he was acquainted with the townland of Ballymaguigan, and that it is part of the Castle Dawson estate ; that it contains nine hundred and four acres, exclusive of portions held by Mr. Groves, which are called Tough's or Wallwood's Land, and of a portion held by the lessor of the plaintiff in his own possession ; that the defendant was in possession of nine hundred and four acres and upwards, and that in said nine hundred and four acres there was a large quantity of bog, of cut-out bog and moss, and that the bog possessed by the defendant was nearly enclosed by arable, except on the side bounded by Tough's Land ; on that side it is all bog, excepting a small space between the road and the river, and that the bog on that side came down to Lough Neagh; and that all Ahe bog claimed by the lessor lay within the boundaries of the lease of the 13th of August 1719, and the respective renewals thereof; and that the family of the defendant had liberty of cutting turf on the bog, and that there were frequent disputes amongst the tenants about the bog. The defendants offered several leases in evidence, made by them, of portions of this bog, to prove possession accompanying same ; but these leases were rejected by the learned Baron ; to which opinion "of his Lordship, Counsel for defendant objected, and closed their case. Counsel for plaintiff then called upon his Lordship to direct the Jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff, which he refused to do, but gave as his opinion, that the whole of the land, moss, bog, and cut-out bog, which lay within the boundaries of the premises demised by the said lease of the 13th of August 1719, passed to the lessee and those deriving under him ; and that if the Jury believed that the bog and premises claimed by the present ejectment lay within the ambit of the boundaries of the demised premises, the defendant was entitled to a verdict, and with that declaration left the case to the Jury ; whereupon, Counsel for the plaintiff excepted to the opinion and directions of the learned Baron, on the ground, that according to the terms and true construction of the lease of the 13th of August 1719, nothing passed to the lessee, save and except five hundred and nine acres of land, arable, pasture, and meadow. The Jury found a verdict for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Johnston v The Dublin and Meath Railway Company
    • Ireland
    • Rolls Court (Ireland)
    • 10 Diciembre 1866
    ...JOHNSTON and THE DUBLIN AND MEATH RAILWAY COMPANY Lessee Dawson v. M'Intyre 7 Ir. Law Rep. 552. Winch v. WinchesterENR 1 V. & B. 375. Ranken v. East and West India Docks CompanyENR 12 Beav. 298. Greenwood v. AtkinsonENR 5 Sim. 419. Reidy v. PierceIR 11 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 361. Morrow's Es......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT