St Briavels - Lewis/ Whittington / Bromley / Jones families (General)

by Mike Pinchin , Bedford, England, Sunday, April 08, 2018, 13:14 (2414 days ago) @ Paulina

Maybe this article has some useful information in it,

BNA Gloucester Journal - Saturday 11 August 1855

BROMLEY v PLUMMER AND ANOTHER.—An Action of Ejectment. —Mr. Whitmore, Q.C. and Mr. Powell were for the plaintiff; Mr. Keating, QC and Mr. Gray for the defendants. Both the plaintiff and defendants in this case are in humble circumstances, and the matter in dispute was as to the right to a cottage and two acres of land, at a place called the Fence, in the Forest of Dean. This property formerly belonged to Henry Bromley, an old man, who died in 1813. He was twice married. By his first wife he had two sons, who having enlisted as soldiers, went abroad at the beginning of the present century, and were never more heard of. Old Bromley, by his second wife, also had a family, whose eldest son, Thomas, was the father of the present claimant. The defendant was the uncle, being the second son of old Bromley. Thomas, who also left this country, returned in 1827, resided on the property some time, and left in 1836, when he married. He died 1838, having allowed his mother to reside upon the property. His son, the present claimant, was horn in 1832, and had now arrived at a sufficient age to claim as heir at law. Several witnesses, both for the plaintiff and the defendant, were examined, and Mr. Keating, for the defendant, contended that he had more than forty years’ uninterrupted adverse possession, entitling him by law to become the legal owner of the property, the principal value of which, in fact, he had created by the erection of a house upon it, or at any rate had greatly increased its value. His Lordship, in summing up, said the question for the jury was, whether Thomas, when he returned, actually took possession of the property as its owner. If the action had been brought three or four years ago, it seemed to his lordship, there would have been no answer to it ; but since then the 40 years had elapsed. If, however, the jury considered Thomas did not disturb the possession of his mother, they must bring in a verdict for the defendant; if they thought otherwise—that he took possession as owner, they must find for the plaintiff.—The jury, after a brief consultation, found a verdict for the plaintiff.