The Belfast Dock Act, 1854, and The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. v ex parte The Earl of Ranfurly

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 14 January 1867
• Date: 14 January 1867
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

IN THE MATTER OF THE BELFAST DOCK ACT, 1854, AND THE LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT, 1845.

and

EX PARTE THE EARL OF RANFURLY.

UNK See 12 Ir. L. R. 175.

UNK See 9 Ir. C. L. R. 374.

UNK 9 Ir. C. L. R. 473.

Donegall v. Lord TemplemoreUNK 12 Ir. L. R. 175; 9 Ir. C. L. R.

The Duke of Beaufort v. The Mayor of SwanseaENR 3 Exch. 313.

Horne v. Mƒ€™KensieENR 6 Cl. & Fin. 628.

Earl of Murray v. The Duke of Gordon Morrison, 12, 797.

Dalglish v. The Duke of AtholENR 5 Dow. 282.

Mallan v. MayENR 13 M. & W. 511.

Nash v. BirchENR 1 M. & W. 402.

The Duke of Devonshire v. The Corporation of YoughalUNK Cited 12 Ir. L. R. 196.

The Duke of Devonshire v. Smith Al. & N. 460.

Lord v. The Commissioners of the City of Sidney 12 Moo. P. C. C. 473.

Bradford v. The Dublin and Kingstown Railway CompanyUNK 7 Ir. C. L. R. 624.

Roe v. LidwellUNKUNK 9 Ir. C. L. R. 184; 11 Ir. C. L. R. 320.

Attorney General v. Hanmer 4 Jur. N. S. 751.

Chad v. TilsedENR 2 Br. & B. 403.

Malcolmson v. Oƒ€™DeaENR 10 H. L. C. 603.

Manning v. Fitzgerald 29 L. J. N. S. Ex. 24.

Oƒ€™Neill v. AllenUNK 9 Ir. C. L. R. 132.

Little v. WingfieldUNK 8 Ir. C. L. R. 279.

Gibson v. ClarkeENR 1 Jac. & W. 159.

Tuthill v. Rogers 6 Ir. Eq. R. 429.

Doe v. BevissENR 7 C. B. 456.

Baird v. Fortune 7 Jur. N. S. 926.

Jones v. WilliamsENR 2 M. & W. 326.

Nightingall v. SmithENR 1 Exch. 879.

Stanley v. WhiteENR 14 East, 332.

Harne v. Mƒ€™KensieENR 6 Cl. & Fin. 628.

Dalglish v. the Duke of AtholENR 5 Dow. 282.

Donegall v. TemplemoreUNK 9 Ir. C. L. R. 374.

The Commissioners of Sidney 12 M. P. C. C. 475.

Berridge v. WardENR 10 C. B. N. S. 400.

Simpson v. DendyENR 8 C. B. N. S. 433.

The Duke of Beaufort v. The Mayor of SwanseaENR 3 Exch. 413.

The Attorney General v. Jones 2 H. & Colts. 347.

Doe v. KempENR 2 Bingh. N. C. 162; S. C. 2 Sc. 9.

UNK 9 Ir. C. L. R. 374.

Ancient Grant —— Boundaries included or excluded — Limits of Navigable Rivers.

Ch. AN. them as to the realty, why leave the £2000 and the residue of 1866-7. personalty unprotected ? Was there less need. of protection ? Is MASSY the interest which a husband takes in his wife's pure chattels less absolute, less indefeasible than that which he takes in her chattels HAYES. real or her freeholds ? I have no hesitation in saying that, with such a will as this before me, I should have been of opinion, though Gilbert v. Lewis had never been decided, that the effect sought to be given to the word " sole" is not only not proved, but is positively negatived ; but with that authority to guide me, the case seems reasonably free from doubt. On the whole, my opinion is, that the decree below should be reversed, and the cause petition dismissed. Solicitor for the Appellants : Mr. D. Thorp. Solicitor for the Respondents : Air. W. D' Alton. _Rolls. IN THE MATTER OF THE BELFAST DOCK ACT, 1854, AND 1866. THE LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT, 1845. Dec. 10, 11, Ex PARTE THE EARL OF R A NFURLY. 12. 1867. Ancient Grant-Acts of Ownership-Boundaries included or excluded-Limits Jan. 14. of Navigable _Rivers. The Crown, by Letters Patent, granted all the regions, countries, or territories of C, and also all other manors, lands, &c., lying and being in and within the limits, mears, and bounds, of the said territory ; and stated, in describing the boundaries, that the river of L. on the west and north-west, "and the sea shore towards the east, and the bank of the bay of K. towards the north, is held to be the most noted wear and boundary of the territory aforesaid," and excepted from the grant all weirs and fisheries in the river of L. Held, 1. That the description did not necessarily exclude from the grant the shore of the bay of K. between high and low water mark ; 2. That continuous acts of ownership by the grantees on the shore of the bay of K. were admissible to show that the foreshore constituted part of the premises granted. The judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber in Donegal v. Temple-more (9 Ir. C. L. R.) approved of. LN the year 1854 a piece of fore-shore, or slob ground, within the harbour of Belfast, was taken by the Belfast Harbour Commis EQUITY SERIES. 129 sioners, under the powers conferred on them by their local Act, with which the Lands Clauses' Consolidation Act, 1845, was incorporated. The title to the premises taken being in dispute, the purchase money, £8000, was lodged in Court to the credit of this matter. A petition in the matter of the local Act having been presented by the Earl of Ranfurly, one of the persons claiming the fluid. in Court, praying that the right thereto might be ascertained, an order was pronounced by the late Master of the Rolls on the 21st of FeÂÂbruary, 1859, by which it was referred to Master Litton to inquire and report who was entitled to the fund in Court. The claimants were the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, claiming on behalf of the Crown; the Marquis of Donegall, the Earl of Ranfurly, Baron Templemore, and Thomas M'Clure, the three latter deriving under the same original title, and making substantially the same case. The Master made his report on the 8th of July, 1861, and thereby found that the Right Hon. Spencer Baron Templemore, the executors of the Earl of Ranfurly, and Mr. M'Clure, were enÂÂtitled to the fund in Court. On the 11th of February, 1862, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests moved to vary the report, and that it might be declared that they were entitled to the said fund. The Marquis of Donegall also moved to vary the report, claiming the whole fund. In the.year 1846 an ejectment for a piece of foreÂÂshore contiguous to the lands so taken by the Belfast Harbour ComÂÂmissioners had been brought by Lord Donegall against Lord TemÂÂplemore, in which judgment was given for Lord Templemore (1). In 1849 another ejectment was brought by the same Plaintiff against the sam e Defendant, for the same premises. In the latter action the Court of Exchequer gave judgment for the Defendant, which judgment was affirmed, upon appeal, by the Court of Exchequer Chamber (2). To those actions the Crown was not a party; but the same titles relied on before the Master in the present matter were in those actions asserted by Lord Donegall on the one side, and Lord Templemore on the other. When the motions to vary the Master's report came on to be heard, an appeal was pending in the House of Lords from the judgment in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, Lord Donegall being the Appellant, and Lord Temple (1) See 12 Ir. L. R. 175. (2) See 9 Ir. C. L. R. 374. more the Respondent. Under these circumstances the late Master of the Rolls directed the motions to stand over until the House of Lords gave judgment on that appeal. The appeal having been withdrawn, upon a compromise between the parties, the motions to vary the report of the 8th of July, 1861, were now renewed. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests claimed the lands in question, as lying between high and low water mark. The title of Lord Donegall, and the evidence in support of it, are stated in the above-mentioned reports. The origin of the title was a patent of the 20th of November, 1620 (19 Jac. 1), by which the Crown granted to Sir Arthur Chichester " all the fisheries and fishing places of what kind soever of all the river of Lagan, and the ground and soil of all the said river." Lord Templemore, Lord Ranfurly, and Mr. M'Clure claimed under a patent of the Crown,.of the 3rd November, 1605. The terms of that grant, and the acts of ownership relied upon as eviÂÂdence in support of the title derived under it, are fully stated in his Honour's judgment. The principal questions which arose and were argued and deÂÂcided by the Court were 1st. Whether the words in the patent describing the bounÂÂdaries of the premises granted, viz., " and from thence the sea shore aforesaid, towards the east, and the bank (ripa) of the bay of Knockfergus, aforesaid, towards the north, is held to be the most noted mear and boundary of the territory aforesaid," necessarily excluded from the grant the bank or sea shore thus mentioned as one of the boundaries. 2ndly. Whether acts of ownership on the said sea shore were admissible in evidence, in order to ascertain the premises which passed by the patent, and if so, whether those relied on established that the shore was comprised therein, as part of one of the denomiÂÂnations. 3rdly. Where an actual grant conveys the whole ground and soil of a navigable river, mentioned by name, is the extent of that grant seawards to be fixed by contemporary reputation as to the limits of the water then known as that river, or by a consideration of the physical features of the river as they existed at the time of the grant ? EQUITY SERIES. • 131 The Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Lawson, Q. C., Mr. Sullivan, Q. C., and Mr. Hunter, for the Commissioners of Woods and. Forests, as representing the Crown, contended, as against the claim of Lord Donegan, that it was established in the litigation which had already taken place that the river of Lagan, the bed and soil of which was granted to his ancestor by the patent of 1620, did. not extend seawards so far as the premises now in question. And as against Lord Templemore, and the other claimants deÂÂriving title under the patent...