Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { ?s ?p "Worlledge v Manning (1786) East, 26 Geo. 3 CB; 126 ER 34 is a landmark British judgment by the House of Lords and was formative to the modern legal understanding of private property rights.The matter related to gleaners rights and arose from a disagreement about gleaning during the 1785 harvest. After the barley crop had been cut and cleared, a Timworth shoemaker, Benjamin Manning, had gone onto the land of John Worlledge, the richest farmer, in the adjoining parish of Ingham, Suffolk to glean and had carried away a quantity of barley. Worlledge disputed his right to do so and brought an action for trespass in the Court of Common Pleas. The court decided in Worlledges favour in May 1786 and awarded him damages and costs. The court held that the defendant was not an inhabitant of the parish in which he gleaned, and was not entitled to the gleaning support. The Court therefore decided that a stranger had no right to glean.It was the first time gleaners’ rights had been challenged and served as precedent and possible catalyst for the landmark case Steel v Houghton a year latter.In a separate matter, the defendant Manning attempted to prosecute Worlledge the plaintiff for assault at the Suffolk quarter sessions court."@en }
Showing triples 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 triples per page.
- Worlledge_v_Manning abstract "Worlledge v Manning (1786) East, 26 Geo. 3 CB; 126 ER 34 is a landmark British judgment by the House of Lords and was formative to the modern legal understanding of private property rights.The matter related to gleaners rights and arose from a disagreement about gleaning during the 1785 harvest. After the barley crop had been cut and cleared, a Timworth shoemaker, Benjamin Manning, had gone onto the land of John Worlledge, the richest farmer, in the adjoining parish of Ingham, Suffolk to glean and had carried away a quantity of barley. Worlledge disputed his right to do so and brought an action for trespass in the Court of Common Pleas. The court decided in Worlledges favour in May 1786 and awarded him damages and costs. The court held that the defendant was not an inhabitant of the parish in which he gleaned, and was not entitled to the gleaning support. The Court therefore decided that a stranger had no right to glean.It was the first time gleaners’ rights had been challenged and served as precedent and possible catalyst for the landmark case Steel v Houghton a year latter.In a separate matter, the defendant Manning attempted to prosecute Worlledge the plaintiff for assault at the Suffolk quarter sessions court.".