deemed worthless, and the plaintiff
sued for L59, the price of the sugar. The judge, however, resisted the
claim, and declared that the order had paid for the sugar, although its
sale was clandestine and illegal.

The occupation of land was considered a sufficient proof of ownership,
if not disputed within a short period, or negatived by written evidence.
To resume a location, as the courts were then constituted, required the
issue of a special commission, and could be only effected through a
jury. On a trial, in which the Rev. Robert Knopwood was defendant, Judge
Field stated that the conditions of early grants were practically void.
Knopwood had agreed to sell the estate of Cottage Green for L2,000, to
Captain Jones, who paid L1,000 in hand, and entered into bonds for
L1,000 for payment of the residue. Knopwood bound himself in a similar
penalty to give up the premises when the whole sum should be paid. The
widow of Jones sued for release from this bond (1821). The lawyers urged
that Knopwood had violated the clause against alienation, and was liable
to forfeit the whole. The judge refused to entertain this plea; but set
aside the forfeiture as unequal: the estate, according to witnesses, was
not worth more than L1,000. The judge strongly condemned the unclerical
rigour of the defendant. The celebrity of Cottage Green, now occupied by
extensive mercantile establishments, gives special interest to the
judgment.

Efforts to resume land, not properly conveyed, were successfully
resisted; and jurors appear to have determined, at all times, to deny a
verdict to the crown. In 1824, in an action for intrusion (Rex _v._
Cooper), the jury delivered a verdict, that "the defendant had obtained
possession in the usual manner." The judges asserted that no title was
good, except such as passed under the great seal. A locatee, in an
action of ejectment (Birchell _v._ Glover), who possessed from 1811
until 1823, was supplanted by a person in 1824, who obtained a grant:
the judge directed for the defendant, but the jury found for the
plaintiff. A similar case (Martin _v._ Munn, 1833), was tried three
times with the same issue. The judge directed, that although long
occupation by the plaintiff were proved, the grant to the defendant was
a virtual resumption by the crown: this the jury considered
inequitable, and found for the original occupier.

The trial of a cause in Van Diemen's Land (Terry _v._ Spode, 1835), led
to the exposure