Two logs of timber - possession disputed at highest level, 1875
Posted: 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:
Clare Freeman, Wed 20 Jan 1875:
Clare Freeman, Sat 4 Dec 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.
SheilaA 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.