PETERSFIELD.
A DISPUTED RIGHT OF PASTURAGE.—A special jury case was tried at the Sussex Assizes, on Thursday last, before Mr. Baron Mramwell, in which Lady Featherstonhaugh, of Up-Park, was plaintiff, and a tenant of Col. Coles, named Boys, defendant. It was a case of trespass. The facts were very simple, involving the right of pasturage over 200 acres of down land, called Downley Brow, which Lady Featherstonhaugh claimed on the one side, and Col. Coles and his father, the Rev. John Coles, on the other. The case for the plaintiff was, that Lady Featherstonhaugh possessed an estate on the borders of Sussex, and Col. Coles, who was the actual defendant, Mr. Boys being the nominal defendant, leased four homesteads adjoining, but in the county of Hampshire. Plaintiff was also Lady of the Manor of West Harting. Mr. Boys, who occupies Downley Farm, claimed the right of pasturage over Harting Down, and plaintiff maintained that as Lady of the Manor that right was vested in herself. From 1835 to 1858 considerable contention had, it appears, existed between the parties, and in 1858 an agreement was entered into that the defendant should exercise the pasturage right over a certain portion of the Down, and this was marked out by boundary posts. Since then, however, defendant had allowed his sheep—and not only the sheep from Downley Farm, but also those from two or three other farms—to consume the pasturage on other portions of the Down to an alarming extent. In February, 1862, Lady Featherstonhaug wrote to defendant and complained of this infringement of the agreement; and in reply, defendant complained that her sheep trespassed within the proscribed boundary, wherein he had the right. Another of the twenty-three pleas in the action had reference to the right of way of Harris-lane, also in the manorial right of Lady Featherstonhaugh, which defendant was alleged to have cut up by traversing it with heavy waggons. The case occupied four hours in hearing. The evidence for the plaintiff was voluminous, and after several witnesses had been called, it was ultimately agreed by Counsel on both sides, that a juryman should be withdrawn, that each party should pay their own costs, and that the matter should be referred to some competent gentleman for arbitration.