Davies Gilbert (born Giddy)/Davies-Gilbert

Davies Gilbert (born Giddy)/Davies-Gilbert

Male 1767 - 1839  (72 years)


 

«Prev «1 ... 8 9 10 11 12     » Slide Show

HOME CIRCUIT.—Lewes, March 26. (Before the Lord Chief Baron and a Special Jury. GILBERT AND OTHERS V. THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE; report - Friday 01 April 1864

Legal Intelligence. HOME CIRCUIT.—Lewes, March 26. (Before the Lord Chief Baron and a Special Jury. GILBERT AND OTHERS V. THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE.
The action was one of ejectment to recover a small strip of land adjoining or near to the sea at Eastbourne, the principal plaintiff, a minor, Carew Davies Gilbert, only child of the late John Davies Gilbert, Esq., of Trelissick, Cornwall, who sued with his mother and guardian, the Dame Dorothea Gilbert, and John S. Enys, Esq, and C. Glynn Prideaux Brune, Esq., acting as trustees under the will of the late Charles Gilbert, Esq, of Eastbourne, through whom the plaintiffs claimed as lord and lady of the manor of Eastbourne
Royal Cornwall Gazette - Friday 01 April 1864

Legal Intelligence.


HOME CIRCUIT.—Lewes, March 26.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron and a Special Jury.
GILBERT AND OTHERS V. THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE.

This cause was fixed for trial to-day before a jury empa-
nelled for that purpose.

The action was one of ejectment to recover a small strip of
land adjoining or near to the sea at Eastbourne, the principal
plaintiff, a minor, Carew Davies Gilbert, only child of the
late John Davies Gilbert, Esq., of Trelissick, Cornwall, who
sued with his mother and guardian, the Dame Dorothea Gil-
bert,  and John S. Enys, Esq,  and C. Glynn Prideaux Brune,
Esq., acting as trustees under the will of the late Charles
Gilbert, Esq, of Eastbourne, through whom the plaintiffs
claimed as lord and lady of the manor of Eastbourne. The
defendant pleaded that he was the owner of the strip of land
in question, and this was the issue to be tried.

Mr Lush, QC., and Mr Raymond (instructed by Messrs
Smith and Roberts, of Truro, and Messrs Gell and Son, of
Lewes), were for the plaintiff ; Mr Bovill, Q.C., and Mr Hannen
instructed by Messrs Carrey and Holland, and Messrs Hol.
lings and Co., London), for the defendant.

This case excited some interest because, although upon the
form of the pleadings only a very small quantity of land, and
which was alleged to be part of the waste of the manor, was
sought to be recovered, the question was one of very consider-
able interest as affecting the extensive property of the noble
defendant in the same neighbourhood, other portions of the
same waste claimed by the plaintiffs having been built upon
by him.

Originally, it would seem, the waste was comparatively worth-
less, but the altered state of things at the present time, and the
greatly enhanced value of property at a fashionable watering
place of this description, have, it appears, had the effect of
inducing the parties to look to their supposed rights, and the
present action has been the result.   From the partial opening
statement of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs it appeared
that the Gilbert family had been lords of the manor of East.
bourne, which is a very ancient manor, and mentioned in
“Domesday Book " for a very long period and that in the year
1845 the present defendant,who was then Earl of Burlington,and
who also had an interest in the manor, made an arrangement
by partition and otherwise to divide the manor between them
and since then the defendant, who is also the freeholder of other
property in the same neighbourhood, baa been exercising his
rights as landlord.   The piece of land now sought to be
recovered was a small strip adjoining the high road from East-
bourne to Pevensey, and immediately fronting some of the
freehold property of the defendant, and the question was whe-
ther this strip of land which, although not in itself of much
Importance, was stated to be of very great value in connec.
tion with the freehold property of the noble duke, belonged to
him or to the plaintiffs.   Mr Lush entered at considerable
length into the nature of the case he should have to lay before
the jury, and produced a number of maps and plans, all of
which, he said, tended conclusively, in his opinion, to show
that the piece of land in question was the property of the
plaintiffs.

The Chief Baron interposed before the learned counsel had
concluded, and said it appeared to him to be quite clear that
the cause could not be disposed of that day, and be must be at
Kingston on Monday to open the commission tor Surrey. He,
therefore, suggested that the question should be disposed of by
a special case, to be submitted to the Court of Queen’s Bench,
upon a statement of facts to be found by an independent
gentleman of the bar.

Mr Bovill said he was sorry he could not consent to this, as
his client was most anxious that the opinion of a jury of gen-
tlemen of the county should be taken upon various questions
of fact relating to the matters at issue, that he should have to
submit to them.   If his instructions were correct the plaintiffs
had no title whatever to the piece of land in question.

A discussion then took place between the learned judge
and the counsel on both sides, and at length it was ar-
ranged that the cause should stand over to the summer assizes.
 



Royal Cornwall Gazette - Friday 01 April 1864

via lllllll



Owner of originalRoyal Cornwall Gazette
Date1 Apr 1864
Linked toEastbourne, Sussex; Trelissick, St Erth; Family: Gilbert/Carew/GILBERT (F1711); Hon. Anne Dorothea Carew/GILBERT, d of Sir Robert Shapland Baron Carew; Carew Davies Gilbert; John Davies Gilbert; Davies Gilbert (born Giddy)/Davies-Gilbert; Mary Anne (Ann Mary) Gilbert/GIDDY/GILBERT(Gilbert-Davies), Agrononist

«Prev «1 ... 8 9 10 11 12     » Slide Show