[land titles, uncertainty - assault - trespass to land - land titles, location order]

Shoobridge v. Dunn, Jun.

Supreme Court of Van Diemen's Land

Pedder C.J., 8 July 1835

Source: Tasmanian, 17 July 1835[1]

Before His Honor the Chief Justice

This was an action for an assault and trespass, charged to have been committed by defendant upon the plaintiff, and upon his premises. The action arose out of disputed boundaries. The attorney General and Mr. Horne were for the plaintiffs; Mr. Gellibrand and Mr Butler for the defendant. Verdict for plaintiff. Damages for the assault, one farthing; for the trespass, £25.

Pedder C.J. and Montagu J., 8 September 1835

Source: Tasmanian, 18 September 1835[2]

SITTING IN BANCO

Mr. Gellibrand applied for a new Trial in the case of Shoobridge v. Dunn, upon the ground that a verdict was given contrary to evidence, inasmuch as Mr. Dunn, although he had not obtained a grant, had in his possession a location order, and consequently, had a right to remove all trespassers, or his location order was of no use whatever, The location order expressly stated - "You are hereby authorised to take possession of the suburban allotment hereinafter described," and directed to John Dunn, Esq.; and he contended, that as he was authorised to remove trespassers, the same power would be delegated i.e. his servants acting under his express command, which in this case it was proved they were. And although he was not actually possessed of the ground, yet his having lawful possession of nine acres adjoining it, and hold such a document as the location order for the other, he considered that Mr. Dunn was quite authorised to act as he had done.

Their Honors would consider further on the subject.

Pedder C.J., 13 November 1835

Source: Hobart Town Courier, 20 November 1835[3]

In this case the Chief Justice thought it right to state, that although this case appeared to have stood over some time, it was principally owing to the counsel having failed to argue it at any length, and had cited no cases. Besides, although the rule was obtained the first day of last term, the argument was put off by the counsel to the last day of term. The counsel well knew how he had been occupied since then. At the suggestion of Mr. Gellibrand it was agreed that the points (which are most important) should be argued again.

Notes

[1] See also Courier, 10 July 1835.

[2] The matter was postponed on 25 September 1835: Tasmanian, 2 October 1835. See also Hobart Town Courier, 13 November 1835, noting that the Attorney General pressed the decision of the court in this case "as the plaintiff was in a very dangerous state".

[3] Argument was heard on 17 and 20 November 1835: Hobart Town Courier, 20 and 27 November, 4 December 1835. For judgment, see Shoebridge v. Dunn, 1836.