Click here to return to the main site entry page
Click here to return to the previous page
Rushden Echo, 26th July 1918, transcribed by Kay Collins
Smallholders’ Dispute
Wix v Jones
Smallholders’ Dispute—At the Wellingborough County Court yesterday week, before his Honour Judge Radcliffe, K.C., in regard to the case of Wix v Jones, Rushden, heard at the last court, when judgement was given for the plaintiff, Mr. H. W. Williams applied, on behalf of the defendant, for a new trail. Messrs. Wix and Jones holding adjoining small holdings on the Court Estate, and, as previously report in the "Rushden Echo," the plaintiff was awarded damages and an injunction against defendant for trespass. There was a spirited dispute as to the portion of land on which, it was alleged, trespass took place, and considerable conflict of testimony as to the boundary line dividing the plots. It will be remembered that his Honour visited the scene of the dispute before giving a decision in plaintiff’s favour. Mr. Williams stated that he had obtained further evidence in support of defendant’s claim to the land, and he desired to call Mr. Burr who prepared the plans when the estate was divided. His Honour said that, having viewed the plots, he was satisfied that no one in his senses would divide the land other than by the water-course, which he held was the boundary. Mr. Williams outlined the additional evidence he had obtained, but his Honour declined to re-open the case, and emphasised that for 17 years the plaintiff had had undisputed possession of the land and his right to it was disputed only by a newcomer. Mr. Williams asked for leave to appeal, but his Honour refused the application, saying that he regarded the case as a very trumpery dispute and most unneighbourly. Defendant would have to pay the costs of the day. Mr. W. W. James appeared on behalf of the plaintiff.

Click here to return to the main index of features
Click here to return to the Court Estate index
Click here to e-mail us