Judge says land must be given up

Judge says land must be given up

The question of whether a field at Hutton le Hole, which was desired as a Playing Field, was an agricultural holding was the main point in an application heard at Malton County Court on Wednesday before Judge Kingsley Griffith by Fred Burnley, of Hutton le Hole, for possession of a house and land at Hutton le Hole against Mrs Gertrude Sterricker.

Mr G H Heninghem, of York, who appeared for Mr Burnley, said that his client purchased the property in 1946. He wanted the land to provide a recreation ground for the village. He tried to buy the field alone but the owner would not separate it from the house. He told Mrs Sterricker of his intentions and that it was not his wish to disturb her in the house. She was told if she would give up the field there would be a reduction in the rent and she would be compensated for her sub-letting of the land. For some reason she disliked the idea of the field being used for recreational purposes and declined the suggestion. That being so his client was forced to seek an Order of the Court so that the village should not be deprived of the amenities.

Continuing, Mr Heninghem said the Judge would have to decide one point only and that was whether the property came within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act. If it did not he would be entitled to an order.

The property consisted of a large dwelling house occupied by a woman of advancing years who had no interest in the field which had been sub-let. There was a garden which was neither agricultural nor pastoral and seven acres of land which were sub-let.

Mrs Sterricker said she kept poultry and sold fruit from the orchard to hucksters.

Mr R M Clough, barrister, instructed by Messrs. Soulby, Hall and Elston said His Honour should consider the whole purview of the land and the use to which the whole of the premises were put. It was clear that no person could be expected to use every square foot of the premises and he submitted the evidence brought the premises within the meaning of the Act and the applicant was not entitled to possession.

The Judge decided that it did not come within the meaning of the Act and made an order for possession of the field to be given by the end of the month and possession of the house by December.

Malton Gazette 25th July 1947