R. V. Joseph Dacre Esq:r
The case was this
Margaret Teasdale who appeared to be the
Prosecutrix was the owner & occupier of a Public
House situated near a River over which about the
year 1761 it was thought proper by the
Quarter-Sessions (agreable to the power given them
by Statute) that a Bridge should be made.
The Share on one side was her property:
and upon being applied to to give up to the a small
piece of ground over which to compleat it was necessary
that the road should pass to meet the Bridge
but without it appear any compensation offer'd, it appeared
that she gave a verbal consent — In consequence
of this the Bridge was made: over
which together with the road taken out of
her land the Public passed for 9 years to then without interruption.
After all this time had lapsed,
thinking as seemed probable that as she
had received no consideration for the Land, nor
executed any conveyance, her right continued
uncancelled, & that she might bring the County
to terms, she on a sudden caused a ditch
to be made across cut & a Gate to be put up across that part of the land that
had been her's — For this she was indicted
at the Quarter Sessions as for a Nuisance,
but the Indictment for some reason
or other which did not appear, was quashed.
at the next Sessions holden for licencing Public
Houses only the Deft & one other
Justice (who had died before the commencement
of the Prosecution) were present : & they
two refused to review her License; tho' the
house had been kept for 40 or 50 year
The information was therefore moved for
against the Deft for refusing the woman
her licence upon the account of what she
had done respecting the road. No personal
pique was alledged.
It appeared, as the Court declared, very
clearly, that the nature of the Deft was
no other than this although For the Deft
did not deny the discourses sworn upon
him on the part of the prosecution, wherein
he had alledged it as a reason. But he
swore further that the house was a house
of bad fame, & (I believe) that he refused
the licence because the house was a house
of bad fame — but certainly he did not
swear that this was his only reason.
Of this bad fame no instances were given, nor any information
pretended to have been made.
A person who made an affadavit on his
behalf swore that the Lease had been
such using other general expressions, among
the not that of "a house of despicable
character" for 20 years, ago that he had known & that of late it
had been but "indifferent".
The Court refused to grant the rule directed that the Deft had acted
improperly in shape calling in his power of granting
licences "in aid" (as Ld Mansfield's expression
was) of his other Jurisdiction, and in particular
added his Lordship, I do not take
his saying that he refused because the
house was of that character which it is
very plain he did not.
The Court however refused to grant the observed that
information "because the Prosecutrix did
not "come with clean hands" that she had
been very ill advised to do what she had
done, & that if the Information were granted
she would only find herself where she was
at the end of a long & expensive litigation.
They therefore refused to grant the Information
And put it to the Council whether if the Licence
was granted received nor the Prosecutrix would not
remove the nuisance which terms proposal appeared
to be embraced by the Counsel on both sides
Identifier: | JB/050/090/001
"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 50.
[[watermarks::gr [crown motif] [lion with vryheyt motif]]]