View report page

16
the Arbitrators to award such further sum as they may think fit,
in respect of the loss to the Vestry incurred by reason of the
enclosure of the said plot dividing the Lammas Lands into two
parts.
when it was resolved that the letters of Mr. Sherry, and Messrs.
Last & Sons, together with the report of the Solicitor, be printed and
circulated amongst the members of the Vestry, and a copy sent to
the London County Council, on the 28th September, 1892, the
Solicitor was instructed (1) to prepare a precis of the whole matter
in respect to Lammas Rights, showing the present position of the
Vestry, for submission to the London County Council; (2) to inform
the London County Council that the Vestry renew their offer to
subscribe £1000 towards the costs of the proceedings, upon condition
that the Council take the case up; (3) to inform Mr. Sherry and
Messrs. Last and Sons that the Vestry have approached the London
County Council with reference to the conduct of the case re Lammas
Rights, and feel that they cannot enter into negociations pending
their reply.
Mr. Sherry, Solicitor to the Plaintiffs, on the 14th July, 1892, served
Mr. Blanco White, the Vestry's Solicitor, with notice of trial of
action, and on the 21st December, 1892, the Law and Parliamentary
Committee reported to the Vestry that they had appointed a SubCommittee
to confer with the Solicitor and report with reference to
the case Vestry ats Harwood, which Sub-Committee reported on the
1st February, 1893, as follows:—
VESTRY ats. HARWOOD.
Your Committee having been requested by the Solicitor to
give directions as to the employment of professional searchers, to
examine the old Court Rolls of the Manor of Fulham and the
Parliamentary Records, appointed a Sub-Committee (whose
appointment was confirmed by the Vestry on the 21st December,
1892), who report that having investigated the evidence already
obtained by the Solicitor and the pleadings of the action, directed
the Solicitor not to employ professional searchers, but to proceed
with the obtaining of the evidence, and to prepare a case for the
advice of Mr. Elton, Q.C., Mr. Casson, and Mr. Macaskie.
The Sub-Committee further reported that they had the advantage
of a consultation with the Counsel named, who advised them
that, while there is every probability of the existence of Lammas
Rights being established over the Town Meadows, in an action
properly brought, yet in the present action, they considered the
Vestry must fail, as they did not hold within the parish the
qualifications necessary to entitle them to the exercise of these
rights. The Sub-Committee were further advised that by consenting
to judgment in the present actions, they would not
hereafter, assuming that they acquire a proper qualification, be
barred from establishing the existence of Lammas Rights.