A local historian, now deceased, wrote that an Inn in Wolverhampton was
described in a terrier of 1609 and that "with this went a quantity of
arable land in the common fields of Wolverhampton, two pastures and an
enclosure of 14 acres called Moreton Holte and a share in a barn in or
near Stafford Street".
In the 17th century Wolverhampton was a market town and agricultural
centre, still much reliant on the wool trade. It seems to have had two
large open fields. The fire brief for Wolverhampton issued in the 17th
century includes in its catalogue of destruction a large number of
barns.
I suppose the usual situation was that land in the town could carry with
it rights in the common fields. But is the terrier quoted above
describing a situation where rights in a barn also went with the land?
(I might comment that the local historian quoted above was a solicitor
but did not comment on this legal point - but his interest in local
history seems to have been urban and architectural rather than rural and
agricultural.)
I have never read much specifically about the arrangements made in open
fields attached to towns of some size. Does any one know if having
rights in common over barns (or any other building) happened elsewhere?
Or does anyone know where I might look? (I cannot recollect seeing
anything about this sort of situation in the law books but it does not
seem, on the face of it, to be a legal impossibility.)
--
Frank Sharman
Wolverhampton, UK
tel: +44 01902 335517
Look! No quotes, no graphics!
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|