Teesdale Mercury – August 1st 1928
WOODLAND ASSEMBLY ROOMS.
claim for ownership in the county court.
verdict for the plaintiff.
The question of ownership of the Assembly Rooms, Woodland, was the subject of an action in Barnard Castle County Court, on Thursday, before his Honour, Judge Thomas Richardson.
The plaintiff was Mr Edward Corker, of Folly View, Butterknowle, and the defendants were John Joseph Collinson Allison, Lunton Hill and Bert Blackett, Milehouse, Woodland, on behalf of the committee of the Assembly Rooms. The plaintiffs claimed possession of the premises which the defendants had declined to grant.
Mr C B Fenwick, barrister, instructed by Mr J F Latimer, Darlington, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr M Turner-Samuels, instructed by Mr J E Brown-Humes, of Bishop Auckland, for the defendants.
In the plaintiffs statement of claim it was set out that the Woodland Colliery Company for many years previous to 1915 were the owners in fee simple of a piece of land at Woodland on which, in 1891, they erected an institute or building known as the Woodland Assembly Rooms for the use of their workmen. The Colliery Company exercised the rights of ownership and kept the property in repair until it went into voluntary liquidation in 1911. In 1915 the premises were, inter-alia, conveyed by the Cargo Fleet Iron Company to the plaintiff in fee simple, and on the 18th of February 1924, the same premises were conveyed by the Cargo Fleet Iron Company to the plaintiff in fee simple. The committee of the rooms, as the licensees, were granted the use of the rooms by the Woodland Colliery Company and this privilege was conveyed by the Cargo Fleet Iron Company between the date of the purchase and the sale to the plaintiff. During the period of occupation by the defendants, whilst the Cargo Fleet Iron Company were the owners of the premises, defendants paid to the Cargo Fleet Iron Company an acknowledgement of 1s. a year. By letter written by the plaintiff’s solicitors on the 28th of February 1928, to Mr Blackett, the secretary, on behalf of the defendants, the plaintiffs demanded possession of the said premises and repudiated the title of the plaintiffs to the premises.
In their defence the defendants denied the allegations in the claim, stating that from the year 1891 to 1920 – 29 years, they never acknowledged the title of the plaintiff or his predecessors and that no such rights of ownership were ever exercised. They also pleaded that by reason of Real Property Limitations Act of 1833, the plaintiff’s claim and right of abode were barred.
At the opening of the hearing, Mr Fenwick asked leave of his Honour to revise the particulars of the claim, altering the users of the rooms as licensees from “the committee” to “the workmen”.
Mr Samuels raised an objection to such an alteration at the last moment. He said it put the case upon an entirely new basis for the plaintiff could allege that although the workmen were allowed the use of the hall, the committee were not.
His Honour: I do not see how it prejudices your case.
Mr Samuels: I object to the changing of the phrase.
His Honour: We want to do justice to this case and not to achieve a confusion of terms. Do you require an adjournment to consider this point?
Mr Samuels replied that he did not at that moment. He asked to be allowed to raise the point again should the phrasing of the amendment make it necessary.
His Honour agreed.
Mr Fenwick then opened the case for the plaintiff. He said that Mr Corker claimed the ownership of the premises in fee simple. He did not think he was speaking too strongly when he said the case arose out of an impudent attempt on the part of the gentlemen calling themselves the committee of the Assembly Rooms to oust the others from the possession of the property. He then gave a brief history of the Rooms, emphasising the point that from the beginning the use of them had been limited to the workmen employed by the Colliery Company, who agreed that 1s. Per quarter should be deducted from their wages. The fight for ownership between the plaintiff and the defendants culminated in a summons being taken out for arrears of rent. The Barnard Castle Justices finding a question of title was involved declined jurisdiction. The defendants did not set up a possessory title, they simply claimed that they had paid no acknowledgment for 21 years. The question of title did not arise, and he submitted that unless the committee could show a better title than the plaintiff they must get out.
Mr Corker produced the conveyances of the property from the Cargo Fleet Iron Company to himself. In November 1924 he called upon Herbert Blackett and asked when the last rent had been paid. So far as he could remember, Blackett replied that the rent had been paid. Later, witness objected to the use of the hall for political purposes, and laid his views before the committee, which had just elected him as President. The committee objected to his interference and also declined to pay the rent of 5s. a week which he demanded.
Cross-examined by Mr Samuels:
He had lived in the district all his life and remembered the erection of the building in 1891. No contributions were asked for from the general public or the miners towards the building fund. All the subscriptions collected were devoted to the furnishing of the room.
Mr Samuels: I do not want to hear about the wretched furniture. Was any money contributed towards the bricks and mortar by the miners?
Witness: I cannot say.
Or by the farmers’? – I do not know.
Witness agreed that for over 20 years a committee had had full control and management of the Hall. It was always the practice to deduct various sums for permanent relief etc., from the men’s wages. Personally, however, he never deducted anything from his employees’ wages.
Witness said he remembered the Hall being put up for sale in September, 1913, but he knew nothing of any protest against the sale being made by the committee and he was certain it was not withdrawn by the auctioneer in consequence; it was withdrawn because the price obtained was not high enough. In February, 1926, he held a meeting at the Hall, and a bill for 6s. 6d. was sent to him by the committee. That had never been paid as he was certain that the committee had no right to the premises whatsoever. They were built for the benefit and use of the workmen at the colliery, and he desired to put them to that use.
His Honour: Are the present users of the Rooms workmen at the colliery?
Witness: Not one. I do not think any men in my employ would be allowed to. Our colliery was working during the strike.
Do you swear that not one of the members is a workman at the colliery? – Not at present.
Is that because there is no work or because the colliery won’t take them? – I could not say until the colliery starts who would be taken.
Mr John Anthony Wade, retired engineman, said he was a member of the old reading rooms. He remembered the erection of the Assembly Hall in 1891. The use was entirely confined to workmen at the colliery and 1s. Per quarter was deducted from their wages. Some years after the building had been put up, men who had been on strike were refused admittance. Application had to be made for permission to hold dances, socials, etc. and the Colliery Company were responsible for the upkeep of the building.
By Mr Samuels: £60 was raised socials, subscriptions etc., and the entire amount spent upon games, furniture, etc. The committee managed the affairs of the Hall, but had to obtain the permission of the Under-Manager when they desired to hold meetings there.
Mr Owen Hardy, Middlesbrough, accountant for the Cargo Fleet Iron Company said he was cashier at Woodland Colliery from 1904 to 1915. With one or two exceptions, the only men allowed to use the hall were those who agreed that 1s. Should be deducted each quarter from their wages. At the end of each quarter he handed over the money to the Under-Manager, Mr Wallace, who was looked upon as “It,” so far as the Rooms were concerned. During the period of liquidation the same practice prevailed. All that time the committee paid the rates and did all the repairs. The rooms were let from time to time for social meetings, and application had to be made to the Under-Manager for permission. If he refused, it was understood an appeal could be made to the Manager. The same practice prevailed when the Cargo Fleet Company took possession, but in 1919 witness went further, and demanded an annual acknowledgement of 1s. This was paid up to 1924, and no protest had been made by the men.
His Honour: It seems to me totally preposterous that these people should claim possession, when for all these years they paid neither rates nor taxes, and contributed nothing towards the lighting, heating or repairs.
Mr Samuels said this case was a test of law regarding the Statute of Limitations. The repairs carried out by the Colliery Company merely strengthened his case.
Mr Hardy answering further questions, said for years he had never heard much about the committee. The Under-Manager was President, Chairman, Committee, and everything else.
His Honour: There are clubs all over the country which manage their own affairs, but that does not mean that they own the premises.
Mr Samuels said he could see His Honour was against him. He would raise certain points, and if the decision was given against him, he would ask His Honour to state a case.
His Honour: Very well. If you want to waste money. It seems to me a preposterous defence. It is the most ridiculous case I have ever had before me.
Mr Samuels: We are here to decide what the law is on the Statute of Limitations.
His Honour: I am satisfied that the Woodland Colliery Company set up the building to take the place of another for the benefit of their workmen. It may be necessary to set up another later on.
Mr Samuels: My submission is that from the moment they erected the hall the Colliery Company never interfered with the management or control, and never had possession for 28 years. Paying rates is an entirely different matter.
His Honour: Do you expect the Colliery Company to go on with the repairs?
Mr Samuels: They are not bound to.
His Honour: It is evident that the hall was used by the workmen who ceased to be members when they ceased to be workmen. If a firm erected a reading room in their own building could it be said after twelve years that the room belonged to the workmen and not to the firm?
Mr Samuels: There is no connection between the two – no similarity.
His Honour: You might as well say that the reading room after 30 years belonged to the people who used it. The men would never have thought of making such a preposterous claim if they had not been put up to it.
Mr Samuels: If any should have brought the action, it should have been an association of workmen now employed at the colliery. Mr Corker had nothing to do with it.
His Honour: Oh, yes; he wants the Hall for the benefit of his men – for the purpose mentioned on the dedication stone.
Mr John Hall, retired engineman, Consett House, Woodland, said he was a member of the original committee of the Assembly Rooms which were for the benefit of the workmen. A farmer, however, was elected on the committee, when it was decided to open the Hall to the general public. Subscriptions were invited towards the building fund and the amounts were handed to the committee.
His Honour: Did the committee hand over the money to the Colliery Company?
Witness: No.
His Honour: Then it is obvious that the subscriptions were not for the building fund.
Mr Hall said that when the new building was opened, it was dedicated by the Manager of the colliery for the benefit of the workmen. From that time onwards the committee managed the Hall. Anyone could become a member on paying 1s. Farmers, tradesmen, and all.
His Honour: Then the dedication is a fraud. It was not dedicated to the workmen.
Witness continued that the money collected was used for buying books and papers and for general expenses. The Secretary was Mr Wallace who was also Under-Manager at the colliery. The committee controlled the management and were never interfered with. Permission for use of the Hall had to be obtained from the committee, not the colliery owners. Mr Wallace had been the Secretary, but anyone else could have been appointed. Applications for the use of the hall were generally made to the Secretary.
His Honour: The Colliery officials did not interfere so long as their Manager was appointed President and their Under-Manager Secretary but suppose a Communist was appointed President would they interfere then?
Witness: We had full and unfettered control.
His Honour: Then the whole population of England could have joined on the payment of 1s. The dedication for the benefit of the workmen was a sham and a fraud.
Witness: The rule was that anyone could join on paying 1s.
His Honour: Women and children too?
Witness; No
His Honour; Why not? Why could not a new-born babe join on the payment of 1s? By his parents.
Mr Samuels: Was there any rule preventing women joining? – No. Or for turning the place into a nursery? – Such a thing was never contemplated by the committee.
His Honour: But a man from Timbuctoo could join in if he wanted to – if he sent a postal order for 1s. ?
Witness declared that there was a big percentage of non-miner members, all the time, but no one had ever raised the point. In September, 1913, there was an attempt to sell the Hall by auction. Mr Stephenson, a butcher, who was a subscriber but not a member, protested at the sale that he had been a subscriber, and no one had any right to sell the property. As a result the Rooms were withdrawn. Since then the committee had repeatedly objected to any attempt to claim the property. No one had ever “put them up” to claiming the building.
Mr Samuels: I want that made quite clear. I should not like your Honour to think that the men were put up by their legal advisors.
His Honour: Oh, I never suggested that the legal advisors were responsible.
Witness continued that in September, 1914, the liquidators of the Colliery Company were offered to convey the Hall to the Parish Council on payment of 5s. As the result of a strong protest by the committee, the sale did not take place.
His Honour said he was attaching no importance to that. The witness was being led, and contradicted himself several times. If the minute book of the Council had been produced it would have been worth far more than the vague recollections of this man.
Witness observed that the first outside member was a Mr Elliott – a friend of the Manager. He could not think of any others, but he was practically certain there were others. Mr Wallace did not entirely run the committee, although his word was accepted as Gospel. The Colliery Company paid the rates, taxes, repairs, lighting and heating, and were rated as the occupiers in the Council’s books.
Albert Hauxwell, miner, Grieveson’s Place, Woodland, said he had been a member of the Assembly Rooms for over 30 years. The management was vested in the committee who were never interfered with by the company. The owners never had any right to interfere with what the committee did.
His Honour: No right, or never did? Suppose you had set up a brothel there. Would the company not have closed it down?
Witness: 1 could not say.
In further examination the witness agreed that the company could have interfered, but said they never did. No rent was ever asked for or paid, and there were members of the institution who were not working at the colliery. He was present at the sale when Mr Stephenson protested, stating that he had put £5 into the building.
His Honour: He was talking rubbish, but it may have affected the sale.
Witness continued that in 1920 the Cargo Fleet Iron Company demanded 1s. as rent. A deputation was sent to interview the manager, who told them if it was not paid the company would stop the supply of fire and light. Accordingly, the committee paid the demand. He did not think that any members of the institution now were working at the colliery. Very few men were employed there now, for the colliery had been broken up and was working in parts.
His Honour: Are your committee prepared to refund all the money spent upon repairs, lights, taxes—hundreds of pounds since 1891. You are honest people, are you not? If you are not prepared to refund the money, do you not think your claim is monstrous?
While one of the witnesses was giving evidence his Honour observed a man sitting in the front row of the court nodding his head, and ordered him to leave. The man was Robert Appleby, who, when he was later sent for declared that he was not as the judge seemed to think signalling to the witness who was answering questions put to him by counsel. He apologised to his Honour.
John Beadle, formerly a clerk at the colliery, said there were members of the institute who were not miners.
His Honour: I take it that this was a well-conducted club and that accordingly the company did not interfere with its management… That is not to say that if the club had been badly managed they would not have been turned out. The owners were entirely responsible for the repair of the structure.
Mr Samuels: Just the same as when the owner of a house does such things for the benefit of the tenant for 12 years, but does not ask for rent, the house becomes the property of the tenant.
His Honour: Can you give such a case where everything has been done for the tenant — even lighting and coal found?
Mr Samuels admitted he could not.
His Honour: I should think not. Such a case has never existed.
Robert Appleby checkweighman, said Mr Corker approached him regarding the hire of the room. A fee of 6s. 6d. was charged, but never paid. Subsequently, Mr Corker’s manager applied to hire the rooms, and was informed they would be let to him when the first bill had been paid. Mr Corker was informed by the committee that they would not be dictated to by him, but would carry on as they had done before.
John Raper, Butterknowle, formerly a member of the Parish Council said a letter had been received from the liquidators offering to sell the hall to the Council for 5s. A subsequent letter withdrew the offer. Bert Blackett, secretary of the Assembly Rooms, described the hiring of the hall to Mr Corker.
Mr Samuels addressing his Honour for the defence, argued that the continuity of ownership by the Woodland Colliery Co. could not possibly be maintained. The introduction of a person to do repairs did not imply ownership. The building was built for a specific purpose, and was handed over for a specific, definite, and continuous purpose.
His Honour: It may have been handed over for a specific purpose, and yet the Colliery Company may have retained their original ownership. I agree that if they handed over the building to the men, they could not get it back again. I do not think, however, they would have handed it over to a committee for the time being.
Mr Samuels: Whether they intended to or not, they have done so.
His Honour: I do not think so. You were licences up to 1919, and subsequently tenants. It was never given to the men in fee simple.
Mr Samuels said if he remained tenant of a house for 12 years without paying rent, on the commencement of the 13th, the Statute of Limitations took him by the arm and walked him in as owner. He submitted in this instance that once the buildings had been dedicated, neither the Woodland Colliery Company nor those who had taken title under them could take action to recover possession. He contended that the owners of the fee simple were the workmen through their committee. Mr Corker had no title whatever: if anyone should combat the claims of his clients, it was his workmen.
His Honour: This right of dedication seems to me so much nonsense. It would be much better for the men to pay rent than to be turned out. There is no dedication in law; if you want to pursue that line of argument you must do so elsewhere. Probably the Colliery Company were out for a little cheap advertisement in putting up the tablet.
Mr Samuels’ asked his Honour to note that there was no interference with the Committee, and that the men enjoyed exclusive possession for over a quarter of a century.
His Honour said if the Committee were the owners of the hall, there was nothing to prevent them from selling the property to-morrow and sharing the money between them.
Mr Samuels: The implied trust, in which the hall was handed over, would prevent that. The workmen were never considered as licensees, and the quarterly shilling was stopped merely for convenience.
Mr Fenwick, replying on points of law, submitted that the company had built the hall for the benefit of their employees, and retained the whole of the outward signs of possession, until they sold their property to the Cargo Fleet Iron Co.
Judgment
His Honour: I do not propose to give a lengthy judgment in this case, I must say that the case seems to me to be very clear indeed. The Woodland Colliery Company, which had been in existence for many years before 1915, in 1891 erected upon a piece of their own land these Assembly Rooms for the use of their own workmen. There is no doubt that these workmen and outside subscribers subscribed money after the building was erected for the furnishing of the rooms. For many years the workmen of that colliery used these rooms, and apparently a few other people subscribed as members. I am quite certain there is no doubt that it at no time entered the Company’s head that they were parting with the possession of their land or the premises, and that so long as the Company continued they were prepared to allow the workmen of the Company who wished to become members to belong to the Assembly Rooms. Unfortunately the Woodland Colliery Co. went into liquidation and since then the property has changed hands, the present owner by purchase being Mr Corker. He can do what he likes with it unless the defendants can take out a title owing to their having been in uninterrupted adverse possession for ten years. But after 1891, who occupied the premises? The workmen. Why? Because they were workmen. Was there any adverse possession there against the owners? It seems to me clear that there was none? The Woodland Colliery Co. was a limited company and they could only hold the property through their representatives or members. It may be a coincidence that the under-manager was for many years secretary of this club. Can there be any reasonable doubt that during all the period of years from 1891 until when the Woodland Colliery Co. went into liquidation that if the members, if the workmen who were members of the Assembly Rooms had used their rights for improper purposes such as for a drinking hall, the Company would have been entitled to interfere? Was the ownership ever out of the hands of the Woodland Colliery Co. in the sense of the right of control all the time? There is no halfway line in cases of this kind. Either the property belongs to Mr Corker as purchaser through the various periods from the Woodland Colliery Co. Ltd., or else the property belongs to John J. C. Allison, of Lunton Hill, Woodland, Bert Blackett, Milestone House, Woodland, and the other members of the Committee of the Assembly Rooms, who can sell the property tomorrow. It is said that it is immaterial that the repairs have been done to this property, and the case Lyons v. Snaith has been put to me, but there it was a case of tenancy, but here there was nothing of a tenancy. Until the year 1920 there was no tenancy. There was at best a licence by the Company to their workmen who paid a certain subscription to use the premises. The fact that all through the years the Woodland Colliery Co. and their successors and the income tax under Schedule A and at any rate supplied a good deal of the lighting and heating, is most material as showing that in all the periods showing all the years they never for one moment thought that the fee simple ownership of the property was in any other hands than the Woodland Colliery Co. and the various other people who through the purchase have possessed it since. I am quite satisfied that through all the material years the Woodland Colliery Co. retained effective possession of these premises and that all they did was to delegate the management to their own workmen. That being so it seems to me there is only one decision to give in this case and that is to make a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the premises in fee simple and to make an order for possession to be given in fourteen days.
Mr J Fenwick applied for costs on Scale C.
Mr Hilton applied to his Honour for a stay of execution pending notice of appeal.
His Honour: I will make a stay of execution on condition that £10 is paid into Court and notice of appeal given within 21 days.
Costs were allowed
Recent Comments