« 上一頁繼續 »
Defence to claim for trespass on a private road.
(3.) Such further relief as the nature of the case may require.
Statement of Defence. 1. The defendant says that the road was and is a public highway for horses and carriages, and a few days before the 5th of March, 1876, the plaintiff wrongfully erected the gate across the road for the purpose of obstructing and preventing and it did obstruct and prevent the use of the road as a highway. And the defendant on the said 5th of March, 1876, caused the said gate to be removed, in order to enable him lawfully to use the road by his horses and carriages as a highway.
2. The defendant denies the allegations of the 5th paragraph of the statement of claim, and says that neither he nor any of his workmen or servants did any act or used any violence other than was necessary to enable the plaintiff lawfully to use the highway.
Trespass to a Mine, and Trover of Quantities of Coal. Claim for 1. The plaintiffs are colliery proprietors and dealers in coal, trespass to a mine and
and are possessed of certain lands situate in the borough of W., trover of a in the county of L., and are also possessed of certain coal quantity of mines lying under or in the vicinity of the said lands.
2. The defendants are also colliery proprietors, and are possessed of certain mines adjacent to the said mines of the plaintiffs.
3. The defendants on divers days and times between the 1st of May, 1875, and the 5th of November, 1875, broke into and entered upon the said mines of the plaintiffs, and dug levels in the said mines and worked the said mines, and dug up and got out and carried away and otherwise converted to their own use divers large quantities of the plaintiffs' coal, and erected barriers and other obstructions in and upon the said mines of the plaintiffs, whereby the plaintiffs have been prevented from having access to and working their said mines and getting coal therefrom, and have been otherwise hindered in carrying on their business as such colliery proprietors as aforesaid.
4. The defendants, although requested so to do, have refused to remove the said barriers and obstructions, and by reason of
the plaintiffs being prevented from having access to and work- Claim for ing their said mines in manner before mentioned, the plaintiffs trespass to
a mine, &c. have lost the difference between the value of the coal when the same would otherwise have been gotten by the plaintiffs and the lesser present value of the said coal.
5. The quantity of coal wrongfully dug up, got out, carried away and converted by the defendants as aforesaid, amounts to between 5000 and 10,000 tons.
6. The defendants also trespassed upon the plaintiffs' said mines, and cut and made a roadway through and across the same, and carried and conveyed large quantities of coal, earth, and minerals over the said roadway and through the said mines.
7. By reason of the cutting and construction of the said roadway in paragraph 6 mentioned, the plaintiffs have been and still are prevented from working their said mines on the further or west side of the said roadway, and the plaintiffs have thereby lost the difference between the value of the coal when the same would otherwise have been gotten by them and the lesser present value of the said coal.
The plaintiffs claim -
barriers and obstructions aforesaid.
defendants from any repetition of any of the acts
were before the acts complained of.
Statement of Defence. 1. The defendants do not admit that the plaintiffs were or Defence. are possessed of any of the lands or mines in the 1st paragraph of the statement of claim mentioned.
2. The defendants deny that they on the said days and times or at any time broke into or entered the said mines, or dug
Defence to levels therein or worked the same, or dug up or got ont or claim for
carried away, or otherwise converted to their own use, divers or trespass on mine, and any quantities of the plaintiffs' coal ; and they further deny conversion that they erected barriers or any other obstructions in and of coal.
upon the said mines.
3. The defendants deny that they ever were requested or that they refused to remove any barriers or obstructions as alleged in the 4th paragraph of the statement of claim, and they do not admit any of the other allegations in the said paragraph.
4. The defendants deny that they trespassed upon the said mines, or that they cut and made a roadway through or across the said mines, or carried or conveyed large or any quantities of coal, earth, or minerals over the said roadway or through the said mines.
5. The defendants do not admit the allegations in the 5th and 7th paragraphs of the statement of claim, or any of them.
Reply. The plaintiffs join issue upon the statement of defence, except in so far as it may contain admissions.
Claim for trespass in pursuit of game.
Claim for Trespassing on Land in Pursuit of Game. 1. At the time of the committing of the acts complained of the plaintiff was and still is possessed and in the occupation of certain lands situate on S. Common, in the county of C.
2. On or about the 13th of April, 1876, the defendants entered and trespassed upon the said land in search and pursuit of game.
The plaintiff claims :-
repetition of the acts complained of.
Statement of Defence. 1. The defendants deny that they committed the alleged trespasses.
2. The defendants say that the land whereof the plaintiff claims to be possessed, situate on S. Common, was at the time of
the alleged trespasses the freehold of one M. N. ; and the Defence to defendants on the said 13th of April, 1876. by the leave and claim for licence of the said M. N., entered upon the said land, which pursuit of is the grievance complained of.
Claim for Trespass to Land. 1. The plaintiffs were at the time of the committing of the Claim for grievances hereinafter mentioned in possession and occupation trespass to of certain land situate at P., in the parish of C., in the county of L., adjoining certain land in the occupation of the defendant, and lying between such land and a certain highway called the B. Bank.
2. Before May 8th, 1876, the defendant had on divers times broken and entered the said land and passed and repassed thereon with horses, carts, waggons, a steam-engine and cultivator, doing thereby considerable damage to the plaintiffs' land
3. On the 8th of May, 1876, the defendant by himself and his servants wrongfully broke and entered the said land of the plaintiffs, and broke down a certain fence which had been erected by the plaintiffs on the said land, and trampled and injured the crops of the plaintiffs growing upon the said land, and the defendant threatens to repeat and continue the said trespasses.
The plaintiffs claim :-
servants and workmen, from continuing or repeating
the said trespasses. (3.) Such further relief, &c.
Statement of Defence. 1. The defendant denies that the plaintiffs were at the Statement
of defence. alleged times respectively in possession or occupation of the said land.
2. The defendant denies the alleged trespasses respectively.
3. At the times of the alleged trespasses there was and of right ought to have been a common and public highway over the said land where the alleged trespasses were committed for all persons to go and return on foot, and with horses, carts,
Defence to waggons, steam-engines, cultivators, and other carriages, at all claim for
times of the year at their free will and pleasure, and at the times trespass, that the of the alleged trespasses respectively the defendant and his public had said servants respectively, having occasion to use the said way, a right of way over entered into and upon the said land and along the said highway, the locus
then using the same as he and they lawfully might for the cause aforesaid, and in so doing necessarily trampled upon the crops growing thereon ; and because the said fence had been erected and then was wrongfully in and across the said highway, obstructing the same and preventing the convenient use thereof, the defendant and his said servants necessarily broke down the said fence for the purpose of using the said highway, doing no unnecessary damage in that behalf, which are the alleged
trespasses complained of. Prescrip- 4. At the times of the alleged trespasses the defendant was tion under
possessed of land the occupiers whereof, for the respective periods of twenty and forty years next before this suit, enjoyed as of right and without interruption a way for themselves and their servants on foot, and with horses, carts, waggons, steamengines, cultivators, and other carriages and agricultural implements, from a public highway over the said land where the alleged trespasses were committed to the said land of the defendant, and from the said land of the defendant over the said land where the alleged trespasses were committed to the said public highway at all times of the year, for the more convenient occupation of the said land of the defendant; and the defendant and his servants respectively by his command broke and entered the said land where the alleged trespasses were committed for the purpose of using the said way, and in using the same, and in so doing necessarily trampled upon and injured the crops growing thereon ; and because the said fence had been placed and was then wrongfully in the said way obstructing the same, the defendant and his said servants by his command necessarily broke down the said fence for the purpose of using the said way, doing no unnecessary damage in that
behalf, which are the alleged trespasses complained of. Prescrip- 5. At the times of the alleged trespasses the defendant was tion by lost grant.
possessed, as tenant as hereinafter mentioned, of the said land in the 1st paragraph of the statement of claim referred to as being in the occupation of the defendant, and long before the alleged trespasses, by deed made between the then owner of the