Violent contentions at the Priory Ground claimed by Government
Another occurrence in 1828 was that of a great fall of cliff on the 18th of December between Castle Street and No. 6 Breeds Place.
But the most exciting topic of the year was the claim made by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests on that part of the adjoining the western boundary of the town on which some of the Hastings people had built for themselves houses and other property, under the belief then, that the land had once been overrun by the sea, and for a vast period had been left as dry and desert waste, there was no real owner of it. On the 6th of December, however in the preceding year an inquisition was held at the George Hotel, Battle by the Government officials respecting the claim of the Crown to the said waste ground or beach. Among the several persons who were present without ability to produce title-deeds were some representatives of the Hastings Corporation - namely, F. North, E. Milward and J. G. Shorter, Esqs. These three gentlemen together with Mr. John Phillips (assistant to Mr. Tompsett, the Town Clerk), were deputed on the 30th of November to attend the inquisition and to take such other steps as they might judge to be desirable. Their representations, however, had no weight with the Commissioners, and their claims - if considered as such - were held to have no more validity than had those who it was said had illegally appropriated the grounds. In another part of this History it is shown that the said appropriators had squabbled and fought among themselves over their assumed boundary lines, and got into litigations; hence the inquisition and its result - the claim of the Crown to the territory in dispute. What was the precise nature of the Corporation sentiments and proceedings after the deputation at Battle were politely showed to the door has not been revealed, but about five months later (the last week in May 1828), notices were served by the Crown Solicitor on those who were holding property west of the Priory Bridge to appear at the Kings Bench to substantiate their claims. The broad arrow was soon placed on the property and a lease of 7 years was granted to those who had built premises on the land thus secured by the Crown.
The Messrs. Breeds had made use of a large portion of the ground for their rope-walks, warehouses and other property and they, as well as others, had frequent disputes over what they claimed to be their own. Some of these disputes were taken before the Hastings Court, as in the case of Boykett Breeds being indicted for an assault on Thos. James Breeds, but which on the 11th of Jan 1827 was withdrawn. Some other cases were injudiciously carried to a higher court thus making known to the Crown Officials the state of affairs and forcing them to interfere. Mr. Boykett Breeds had lime-kilns, timber-yards, proter-stores, coal warehouses and premises where is now Claremont. He also purchased Cuckoo Hill and the estate, but afterwards getting into the meshes of the law, he was only extricated by bankruptcy after a draft from his mercantile exchequer of many thousands of pounds. Even when a bankrupt, the Corporation resolved to take proceedings against him for about £50. I will not give it to the reader as a well-remembered or ascertained fact, although I lived close to Mr. Breed's premises at the time, but I have little doubt that the gentlemen here named and others, were meant by the "Richard Roe" referred to in the following legal document:-
In the Kings Bench - Easter Term, in the ninth year of the reign of King George the Fourth, Sussex, to wit. - Richard Roe was attached to answer John Doe of a plea, wherefore he the said Richard Roe, with force and arms, &c., entered into thirty messuages, thirty cottages, thirty shops, thirty sheds, thirty warehouses, thirty coach-houses, thirty stables, thirty outhouses, fie forges, five lime kilns, five rope walks, thirty yards and ten acres of land within the appurtenances, situate and being adjoining to the town of Hastings, in the county of Sussex, which our Sovereign Lord, the now King, had demised to the said John Doe for a term which is not yet expired, and ejected him from his said farm, and other wrongs to the said John Doe, and against the peace of our said Lord, the now King &c. And thereupon the said John Doe, by William Green, his attorney, complains that whereas our Sovereign Lord, the now King, on the fourteenth of March in the the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight, at Hastings aforesaid, in the county aforesaid had demised the said tenements with the appurtenances to the said John Doe, to have and to hold the same to the said John Doe and his assigns from the fourteenth day of March in the year aforesaid for and during unto the full end and term of seven years from thence next ensuing, and fully to be complete and ended. By virtue of which said demise the said John Doe entered into the said tenements with the appurtenances, and became and was thereof possessed for the said term so to him thereof granted as aforesaid; and the said John Doe being so thereof possessed, the said Richard Roe afterwards, to wit, on the fifteenth day of the same month of March in the year aforesaid, with force and arms &c., entered into the said tenements with the appurtenances, in which the said John Doe was so interested, in manner and for the term aforesaid, which is not yet expired, and ejected him, the said John Doe, out of his said farm and other wrongs to the said John Doe then and there did, to the great damage of the said John Doe, and against the peace of our Lord the now King: Wherefore the said John Doe saith that he is injured and hath sustained damage to the value of five pounds, and therefore he brings his suit, &c. -James Lansdell, William Vennall, Richard Richardson, Mary Brazier, Thomas Manington, Robert Noakes, Walter Vincett, Thomas Lusted, William Pignell, Samual Chester, and Charles Emary, I am informed that you are in possession of or claim title to the premises in this declaration of ejections mentioned, or to some part thereof; and I, being sued in this action as casual ejector only, and having no claim or title do the same, do advise you to appear in next Trinity Term in His Majesty's Court of Kings bench, wheresoever the King shall then be, in England, by some attorney of that Court, and
-
