John Vernon and Others, - Appellants; The City of Dublin, - -Respondents

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 04 February 1733
• Date: 04 February 1733
• Court: House of Lords (Ireland)

English Reports Citation: 2 E.R. 270

House of Lords

John Vernon and others

-Appellants

The City of Dublin

--Respondents

Mew's Dig. vii. 1597.

It is usual in Ireland, for a lessee who has been three years in possession, and is disturbed, to file his bill in the Court of Chancery there, for an injunction to quiet him in possession, till evicted by due course of law; and this usage is founded upon the equity of the statutes made against forcible entries. But all bills of this kind must allege, and it must also be proved, that the sole and actual possession is in the plaintiff, and that no ownership or possession is in any other person.

IV BROWN. VERNON V. DUBLIN (dTY of) [1733] [398] case 7.-john vernon and others,-Appellants ; The City of dublin,--Respondents [4th February 1733]. [Mew's Dig. vii. 1597.] [It is usual in Ireland, for a lessee who has been three years in possession, and is disturbed, to file his bill in the Court of Chancery there, for an injunction to quiet him in possession, till evicted by due course of law; and this usage is founded upon the equity of the statutes made against forcible entries. But all bills of this kind must allege, and it must also be proved, that the sole and actual possession is in the plaintiff, and that no ownership or possession is in any other person.] ** orders of the Irish Chancery discharged.** The respondents, the Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, Commons, and Citizens of Dublin, being seised in fee of a large tract of ground or strand, called Crablough, situate within the liberties of the city, and containing about 195 acres; by indenture under their common seal, dated the 18th of July 1718, granted the respondent Alderman French, his executors, administrators, and assigns, absolute power, licence, and authority, from time to time, and at all times, from and after the 25th day of March then next ensuing, for the term of sixty-one years, to lay down and take up oysters on the said piece of ground; and for which grant or licence Alderman French was to pay. :70 per ann. The respondent Alderman French, by virtue of this grant, entered on the premises, and was at a very considerable expence in making oyster-beds thereon; and he, and those deriving under him, for several years peaceably and quietly enjoyed the sole property and benefit of laying down and bedding oysters on the said ground, and of taking away and disposing thereof at his and their pleasure: but the appellant Vernon pretending some right or title to the said piece of ground or strand, he, in the month of May 1729, laid down and bedded oysters on some part thereof; and frequently, within three months before filing the bill after mentioned, caused some of the oysters belonging to the respondent French and his under-tenants, to be carried away and disposed of as he thought fit; and the respondent French sending to the appellant Vernon, and desiring to know what he meant by so doing, and to forbid him from doing the like again, he returned for answer, that he would take oysters off the premises as often as he pleased, and that he would destroy all the oysters belonging to the respondent French, and those deriving under him: and accordingly,, the appellant Vernon, with the other appellants, and several other persons, on the 26th of June 1729, in a forcible and riotous manner, entered on the premises, and carried away large quantities of the respondent's oysters, and caused them to be burned ; the appellant Vernon declaring that he would, from time to time, continue to do so. [399] In consequence of this conduct, the respondents, on the 1st of July 1729, according to an ancient usage or course of proceeding in Ireland, founded on the, equity of the statutes made against forcible entries, exhibited their bill in the Court of Chancery there, against the appellants, praying an injunction to quiet them in the possession of the premises, till evicted by due course of law: and the respondents having petitioned the Lord Chancellor, setting forth the substance of their bill, and praying the usual injunction in cases of force on a triennial possession ; and having annexed proper affidavits to their said petition, to prove the said forcible disturbances, and that the respondents, the corporation of the city of Dublin, and their predecessors, for fifty years past and upwards, by themselves and their under-tenants, and particularly for ten years before the filing of the bill, had been in the actual quiet and peaceable, possession of the premises, except the disturbances so given them by the appellants; it was, on the 2d of July 1729, ordered, that n, injunction should issue, directed to the appellants, for quieting the respondents, their under-tenants and assigns, in the actual possession of the premises, till they should be thereout evicted by due course of law, or till further order of the Court to the contrary. 270 VERNON V. DUBLIN (dTY of) [1733] IV BROWN. An injunction issued accordingly, and the appellants being served therewith, they all thought fit to appear, as in contempt, on an attachment, and submitted to be examined on personal interrogatories touching the matters alleged in the bill, though none of them needed to have appeared but the appellant Vernon, who only contested the possession of the premises; nor could the other appellants have been prejudiced by their not appearing; however, when they all appeared, it became necessary for the respondents to exhibit personal interrogatories against them; for otherwise the appellants, by the course of the Court, would have been dismissed with costs against the respondents. Personal interrogatories being accordingly exhibited, the appellants put in, their answers thereto; and the appellant Vernon in his answer insisted, that the said strand was part of the manor of Clontarf, and that it lay in the...