A Conisborough Land Transaction – Twice Won Victory

January 1907

Mexborough and Swinton Times January 26, 1907

A Conisborough Land Transaction
Mr T. Stacey v Mister. S. Whitefield,
A Twice Won Victory
Mr Andrews and the Judge

An interesting case of a technical and complicated nature, emanating from Conisborough and arising out of the failure of two local agriculturalists to agree off the subject of tenant by was heard on Wednesday in the Doncaster county Court by Judge Alan and a jury.

The plaintiff, a farmer named Thomas Stacey, was represented by Mr G. W. Andrews, and the defendant, Mr Samuel Whitefield, a traction engine proprietor, by Mr W. J. Baddiley.

The claim was for the sum of £15 7s 8d and the particulars showed that in September 1904, plaintiff, by arrangements, had given up to defendant immediate possession of a close of arable land, known as “Highfield” at Conisborough, the owner being Mr George Thomas Nicholson.

The conditions of the transaction were that plaintiff should pay to the landlord the half year’s rent, which would be come due on February 2; and defendant should pay to the plaintiff through the landlord, the sum of £5 in settlement of all claims, including tenant rights and value.

The defendant had then become tenant to the landlord, and in May, 1905, the defendant had caused the valuation of their tenant right to be made, in respect of the land named, in the interests of the defendant. The amount of the valuation had been £13 18s 6d. in favour of the defendant.

On September 26, 1906, Mr Nicholson, had brought an action in the Doncaster County Court for the purpose of recovering the sum of £13 18s 6d and that sumhad been paid, together with £1 9s 2d court fees and solicitors costs this brought the total to £15 7s 2d. The defendant Whitefield had caused Mr Nicholson to commence the previous action, the latter recovering the amount for the use of defendant that  amount the present claim and sought to be refunded.

After much debate and facts laid before the court, the jury retired and after an absence of about 10 minutes returned a verdict for the defendant.

His honour thanked the jurors for their expert assistance in the case.