Two logs of timber - possession disputed at highest level, 1875

Genealogy, Archaeology, History, Heritage & Folklore

Moderators: Clare Support, Clare Past Mod

Post Reply
Sduddy
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 10:07 am

Two logs of timber - possession disputed at highest level, 1875

Post by Sduddy » Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:20 am

I failed to find the report on “Stacpool v the Crown” mentioned in this letter as having been published in the Irish Times of 12th Jan 1875.

Clare Freeman, Wed 20 Jan 1875:
Flotsam, Jetsam, &c.
In connection with the dispute as to the ownership of wreck raised by the two logs of timber cast in by the sea on the south-western coast of Clare, Mr R. C. Hickson writes as follows to the Irish Times: -
“Fermoyle, Castlegregory, 13th January, 1875
Sir – I have just read in your paper of yesterday, 12th inst, a report of the case “Stacpoole v the Crown’ as to the ownership of ‘wreck’ and also your article on this subject. As owner in fee of a long line of coast, with the rights of a ‘lord of the manor’ and having much personal experience in the points at issue, I would ask you for space for a very brief reference to this case as reported, and to the general questions connected with it. The statement of the Crown through the Board of Trade and the Receiver is, that the two logs of timber were found floating at sea, and were by some country people brought on shore to a place of safety; on the part of the ‘lord of the manor,’ it is contended that the logs were washed ashore, and therefore belonged to him. If the former be true, the logs clearly belonged to the Crown, with claims for salvage on the part of the people who saved the property. If the latter is true, the ownership is clearly vested in the ‘lord of the manor.’ The question in fact resolves itself into a matter of evidence – which, under the Merchant Shipping Act, is right referred to a court of two magistrates.
It may appear at first view absurd to litigate the ownership of two inferior logs of timber, but on general grounds I think the plaintiffs in this case deserve much credit for raising the question at their private expense. It would be most desirable to have the rights of the Crown and those of the lords of manors accurately defined. The very point you so justly indicate – as to a log of timber partly on shore and partly in the sea – has a prominent place in the instructions of the Board of Trade to Receivers. Surely a log of timber in this position should be regarded as ‘washed ashore.’ Floating timber or ‘wreck’ is unquestionably the property of the Crown, and becomes realized property when brought to shore by the labour of the salvors. On the other side – if washed ashore by waves without any possible help from any salvor – it is most decidedly the property of the lord of the manor. I have given much attention to those questions, and am fortified in my views by the opinion of an eminent Queen’s counsel, before whom a case on my part was laid – Your obedient servant, R. C. Hickson.
Clare Freeman, Sat 4 Dec 1875:
A case is at present at hearing before the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Justice of appeal, in which Mrs Jane Stacpoole and Mr R Stacpoole appeal from a decision pronounced by the Judge of the High Court, in the case of derelict timber found floating at sea, off the coast of Clare, in September, last year, and claimed by appellants, as lords of the manor, within the boundaries of the finding. The logs were taken possession of by the Deputy Receiver of Wreck, on behalf of the Crown. The question of possession turned on whether the logs were found floating at sea, or cast on the shore, as in the former case they would be the property of the admiralty, in the latter of the Lords of the manor. The magistrates at the Miltown Malbay Petty Sessions decided in favour of the Lords of the manor, but the judge of the Admiralty reversed that decision, and hence the present appeal.
Sheila

Sduddy
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 10:07 am

Re: Two logs of timber - possession disputed at highest level, 1875

Post by Sduddy » Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:40 am

Irish Times, Wed 8 December 1875:
The difference between flotsam and jetsam and the parties properly entitled to either were elaborately discussed recently before the Irish Court of Appeal in Chancery. The famous Bull-em versus Boat-em hardly gave origin to so powerful a display of forensic eloquence, or such deep insight into Admiralty law. The case from henceforth will be “a leading one.” An enormous bar was retained on either side and the costs must tot up to an alarming figure. The object in dispute was the possession of two logs of timber which are improperly called derelict, since from the moment they were seen all manner of persons congregated about them. One log appeared to rise and fall in the sea and occasionally to turn over, by Margaret Egan, who thought it was a great sea serpent, and alarmed the coast population. Soon the coastguards came down in their galley, and capturing the log towed it triumphantly to the beach and placed the Queen’s broad arrow upon it. Within ten days another and a better log ran on ashore, rooting up the gravel. Some of the workmen in the employment of Mrs and Mr Stacpooole, Lords of the Manor of Fintragmore, Co. Clare, seized upon the log, and marked it with the initials of mistress and master. They forgot, however, to anchor it with chain cables and Trotman’s flukes, and a high sea rose and carried the log out to sea again. The everwatchful coastguards then pounced upon it as a lawful prey. They cared more for the little finger of one of the Lords of the Admiralty than for all the Ladies of the Manors in Ireland. Then the litigation began, Mr Stacpoole summoned the Lords or the representatives before the magistrates at Petty Sessions, and obtained a decree granting him possession of the logs as jetsam and not flotsam. Mr Stacpoole maintained his right; but the Admiralty fearing that some day a derelict ironclad might run upon Mr Stacpoole’s beach, and be as truly jetsam as the Vanguard, appealed to the Court of Admiralty, Dublin. The decree of the magistrates was reversed, and last week Mr Stacpoole brought his appeal in turn before the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of Appeal. The Lords of the Admiralty have acquired possession of the two logs, one valued at 10s, the other at 30s. The costs of the proceedings, which have lasted more than a year, must be serious. A principle, however, is established or re-vindicated, and a great many legal gentlemen never had so delightful a suit in their lives.
Log “one” was seen by Margaret Egan, floating, and log “two” was grappled by the Coastguards a few yards off the land; and all men now know what is a flotsam and what is a jetsam. But suppose a long log of timber, or mast of a ship drives one end deep into the beach or into a crevice of rock, while the other end sways up and down, with the swell of the waves, is that mast a flotsam or jetsam or neither? Does it belong to my Lords of the Admiralty or to the Lady of the Manor? The question is an important one, for derelict ships sometimes fix their bows deep in the shore, immovably, while the stern moves up and down, the ship’s back being broken; and, judging from the recent case, no less that a Royal Commission should be appointed to decide the rights of the shore-owner and the Lords of the Admiralty. It will be observed that my Lords include the two pieces of timber among Droits, whence we understand that the motto of the order of the Garter means “Heaven and my Log.”
I would like to know the final decision in the case of the two logs, but haven't found it yet.

Sheila

Post Reply