Conisborough Law Case – Northcliffe Footpath Question.

February 1907

Mexborough & Swinton Times, February 9, 1907

A Conisborough Law Case.
Northcliffe Footpath Question.

In the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, on Saturday, the case of Mr Frederick James Osbaldeston Montagu and Mr Bosdin James Clarkson, against William Barker Wells, of Earnshaw Lane, Conisborough; Thomas Henry Harrison, of 7, Athelstan Road, Conisborough; and Thomas Wall, of 4, Ivanhoe Road, Conisborough, came on for hearing before Mr Justice Swinfen Eady, on the second instant.

Mr W. H. Cochran, counsel for the plaintiff, said that Mr Montagu was the owner, and Mr Clarkson was the occupier, of the Northcliffe Hill, Conisborough, and adjoining fields, which were approached by a private occupation Road, a continuation of Earnshaw’s Lane. For some time past the road and adjoining fields had been subjected to a considerable amount of tresspass by persons passing to and from Conisborough, Kilner’s glassworks, and Denaby colliery, and to prevent such trespass to plaintiff, Mr Clarkson, in July last, placed an obstruction across the occupation Road at the point where the road debouches into the Northcliffe field.

On 25 July last, Mr Clarkson received the following letter:

“Dear Sir, – unless you remove the obstruction on the Northcliffe, we shall at once break it open within half an hour. (Signed), W. B. Wells, Sam Webster, T. H. Harrison, T. Wall, B. Webster, J. C. Marshall, M. Mckie W. P. Brady (secretary)”; and on the same day a large number of persons, accompanied by the defendants, who had been selected for that purpose by a public meeting of residents of Conisborough, demolished the obstruction.

Counsel further stated that proceedings had been taken against the defendants before the magistrates at Doncaster, and as the defendants contended that they had acted with the object of establishing a public right of way, the magistrates held they had no jurisdiction. The plaintiffs claimed a declaration that there was no public right of way over the Northcliffe Hill and adjoining fields, and the private occupation Road leading thereto, and asked for then injunction to restrain defendants from trespassing.

His Lordship made the declaration asked for, and granted an injunction, the court further ordered an enquiry as to damages, and that the cost should be taxed and paid by the defendants.