[Test page] Finance Act 1910 evidence appears the most commonly twisted and often abused common law evidence by instigators and Planning Inspectorate (DEFRA’s) inspectors’ and agent provocateurs’.
“Have you heard the one about a gap in the hereditament line on a Finance Act 1910 map?”
(Answer) “It’s a nonsense that’s regularly abused!” – To explain:
It is/has been regularly claimed, and accepted by those bias to creating public rights of way – when there’s proof beyond reasonable doubt that they do not exist; that a break in a hereditament line on an Inland Revenue surveyors map (marked with coloured overlay) at the time of the Finance Act 1910, is evidence of a public road. It is not. The afore nonsense may be passed off as ‘uniformity’ satisfying the 1910 Act, it’s an absolute nonsense. The ‘uniformity’ at Uffculme & Culmstock lies in the recording of known footpaths within the surveyors field books, the entries often correlating with the O.S. survey plot numbers. The surveyors would not have made sporadic entries re public footpaths.
For example: If an Ordnance Survey map has been marked with hereditament lines by the Revenue surveyors to identify the location of hereditaments; it is absolutely reckless to perceive two or three enclosed areas on a map identify the road or lane between to belong to another landowner, or it is public.
Just because the track or lane terminates at a public place – it does not mean that the track or lane is a public thoroughfare. Nor is it true that the track or lane belongs to someone else:
Imagine that the O.S. map portrays a lane or track, and each end terminates next to a known a public road (a highway) [Think of the thin line of a capital ‘H’ as shown here, to be a lane or track, and the main verticals are public roads that continue to and from, and remain, a public place; and all are surrounded with fields; and the surveyor has marked the map with three separate continuous hereditament lines:
i.) encircling two fields to the left of the track/lane {half the space of the bottom side of the ‘H’}; ii.) all the fields to the top of it to the known boundary of the estate; and, iii.) all those fields on the one side of (one of) the known public highways/roads, to what appears to be another of what appears to be the estate’s known boundary.
Heed: The individual plot/survey numbers marked upon an Ordnance Survey (O.S.) map purely records the area of survey; not necessarily the factual ownership boundaries – ‘fact!’; [The same applies to tithe maps.] the hereditament lines, and features portrayed on tithe maps are often purely ‘for identification purposes only’, or to enable orientation; you have to read any supporting paperwork or other significant substance to be sure.
In simple: compare the recorded acreage within the surveyors field books with the outline of the hereditament marked on the surveyors maps (which were marked purely to assist the surveys, the marking of which, are not mentioned/written within/into the Act – a significant legal argument) and then add the individual acres of the O.S. plot numbers up, then compare their total (the total acreage) with the figures written within the surveyors field books, and it may soon become apparent whether an accommodation road, track or lane; is taxable (or tithe-able [in the case of tithe documents]) – compare your findings with overseer and tithe acreages, you will soon have a reasonable comprehension of the truth according to the balance of probabilities.
Common law evidence that can indicate land acreage and its category of use … to establish whether a lane or significant track was deemed a public road (we’re not attempting to establish the existence of minor paths such as footpaths). By gathering information such as poor law overseer records & reports, tithe records e.g., apportionments and maps re Tithe Act 1836, and 1936 [Normally Ordnance Survey sheets with the layout of the original tithe map(s) imposed upon them.], and Finance Act 1910 field books maps and audit cum account books; it is possible to see (particularly if you have any early conveyance documents) regular patterns of whether tithes and/or overseers rates/levies were paid; and from Finance Act 1910 records, whether the land was deemed (in simple) agricultural or undeveloped. – Once you’ve got your facts written down you can compare total acreages.
Sometimes the numbers may vary because (for instance) additional tithes may be being paid located elsewhere within the parish; this can be reasonably easy to resolve by referral to the tithe maps: warning – always ensure that any map that you are using for a specific purpose, do not get complacent official tithe maps will have identification numbers on them linking them to respective tithe apportionment. Ensure the dates correlate. [Devon County Council public rights of way department relabel overseers for the poor maps as tithe maps; ditto the British Horse Society, to enhance the success of their public fraud.]
An area of land on which there is a substantial track on which tithes or overseers rates are paid, thus ‘encumbrances’ = ‘a pecuniary burden’; would negate an inference that the road or lane was public road for vehicular traffic. And would hold affinity with agricultural land.
Thus; if land of a lane is deemed agricultural* or undeveloped** within Finance Act 1910 papers, it reasonable to infer it is not a public road. [*It can be dug up, covered with manure (a taxable commodity) or have fruit trees or potatoes etc., planted upon it.]
[**It would be against logic (and the common law) for Parliament to have its inland revenue collectors harass a landowner for, or infer, a revenue payment is outstanding for undeveloped land according to the Finance Act 1910, and, conterminously/at the same time, a local (government) authority possess/have a legitimate claim that the enclosed area is a public road open to all traffic.]
Thus if you can establish the foot-print of an estate, from an early period, and you can see symmetry over time, such as an identified map or sketch that enables a reasonable record of location and acreage; and other documents that also give reasonable land area and location, such as wills etc., that can provide any informative fact to corroborate.
One can then find if it is reasonable to record a consistency of ground area and location that correlate ‘one document with another’ with reasonable accuracy to establish whether or not, the land in question was considered a public road.
Inland Revenue took over from poor law overseers in c1925, due to a Finance Act of that period. Thus using a combination of documents, one is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, whether a track, lane or accommodation road was deemed public or private at the time of the said documents.
Tithe Act 1936 documents may only reiterate existing tithes at the time of any survey re the 1936 Act, but (in simple) that is all one requires. Tithes were paid up until c1976 – when Queen Anne’s Bounty was deemed to have been satisfied:
From 1936 the payment of tithes were often wound up early, thus when a farm was purchased, the buyer may have been able to pay off any outstanding tithe encumbrance early; if you can establish from farm or estate (land) tenancy, purchase papers or sale documents, if tithes were paid; particularly in the 20th century, ─e.g., at the time of a sale in 1964; it would assist, in conjunction with other evidence such as tithe, overseer and/or Finance Act 1910 records; whether land was, or was not, deemed a public highway.
Fraudsters will use any trick in their book to expropriate private land because its layout is configured in the shape and profile of a road, lane or track.
This is particularly apparent when regular participants that, ordinarily, should not: wilfully & publicly misrepresent Finance Act 1910 records.
There is nothing written into the Finance Act 1910 – or within the professional guidance literature of the period regarding the marking of Inland Revenue maps. Nor can it be found within the accounts of the public inquiries and hearings, the court cases & disputes between the Inland Revenue and landowners etc., during the period of 1910 to 1917.
DEFRA and their agent provocateurs have regularly inverted the many valuable informations that can be gleaned from tithe, overseer, and Inland Revenue – Finance Act 1910 records.
DEFRA & its Planning Inspectorate inspectors appear to have adopted an unofficial & illicit policy of sophistry with regards to old documents that, when interpreted correctly, cogently provide probative evidence of whether a track, lane or road; was considered to be public or private in the mid 20th century.
If you believe you have fallen victim to the bias & fraudulent/deceptive behaviour of a DEFRA inspector such as Peter Millman, Helen Slade or Susan Doran, and believe you have supportive evidence to corroborate the fact; please feel free to explain. They clearly present themselves as knowledgeable re tithe Acts & Finance Act 1910; but somehow, be it jobbery, entryism; or merely just bad faith & political (socialist?) extremism; don’t appear able to report upon the events of quasi public inquiries without applying their own subtle sophistry & embellishment to corrupt the recorded fact.
The truth has a habit of not wanting to be suppressed; it may surprise you to know that justice tends to catch up with those that bully and affront the truth. ─ See the Attorney General’s 9th January 2007 intro to the Fraud Act 2006 re the situations that necessitate a charge of ‘conspiracy to defraud’.
L.I.P. (Live in peace)
James Field 30.03.2016