GHF-E118 — February 1916 Bute yearly tenancy to John Williams, with plan
Wiki catalogue reference: GHF-E118 · Custodian / source URL: Buckler family evidence repository
Evidence preview
Preview not embedded. As at 10-10-2026, no inline image or document preview was identified in the evidence section of this page. Use the custodian/source link below to inspect the item.
1. The evidence
Evidence object area: no copy is on the Wiki.
Catalogue UID: GHF-E118 · Custodian/source copy: bucklerfamily.estate. Preview and provenance status as at 10-10-2026.
Description
3. What is not known
2. What is known
Catalogue: GHF-E118 · Type: Agricultural tenancy agreement and plan · Date of document: February 1916 · Holder: not located; Bute estate records · Evidence status: PLACEHOLDER original not yet obtained; known only as recited 🕒
DOCUMENTED FACT (as recited in the 1987 judgment). A yearly agricultural tenancy of “the whole of the farm” from the Marquis of Bute to John Williams. See The 1916 Tenancy. The family has accepted that this tenancy embraced both areas.
- Whether a plan exists and what it shows.
- What “whole of the farm” meant in 1916 when, on Mary (Nancy) Williams’s witness statement c.1974 (Mary (Nancy) Williams testimony), the house parcel had been separated in 1877.
Transcription
Open transcription
No verbatim transcription is included in this entry as at 10-10-2026. Where the source contains legible text, transcribe it faithfully and mark illegible or uncertain words rather than silently reconstructing them.
Interpretation and wider context
UNRESOLVED. This is the strongest document against the family’s parcel case unless its plan excludes the house parcel; see the cut-against notes on ReOrg. 🕒
ReOrg · The 1916 Tenancy · The Two Parcels
Interpretive assessment date: 10-10-2026.
Page version & change log
Current version: 1.0.0
| Version | Date (UTC) | Editor (human or agent name) | Change | Source / evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0.0 | 2026-10-18T15:32Z | Cedwyn editors | Footer standardised; earlier log rows carried into this table; no content change | Editing Protocol, 18 Oct 2026 |
| 2026-10-18 (rollout date; exact time not separately recorded) | OpenAI-assisted maintenance agent (GPT-6) | Installed this page-local append-only change log and agent instructions. Existing page content was not intentionally rewritten. | User-directed site-wide changelog standard. Saved via WordPress API; public rendering of this page not yet independently checked. |
Agents and editors: follow the Editing Protocol.
Interpretation: working hypotheses
Working hypotheses, kept apart from the record above. The record text on this page is unchanged. None of these is a finding: each line is labelled as inference, theory, a reading that cuts against the case, or a discarded theory, and names the evidence it rests on and what would confirm or refute it, so the reader can test it. Updated 25 Oct 2026 (v2: ingredients wording).
Title chain and registration
THEORY · R-01Ground R5: the court's starting point — a Feb 1916 tenancy of "the whole of the farm" and BP's "paper title to the farm" — would fail for the farmhouse if the 1938 Bute → Western Ground Rents conveyance did not include it. The 1905 Bute conveyance and the 1924 drain agreement show Bute dealing with land here, so either the house came back to the main estate by a deed not yet seen, or the 1916 recital is loose.
Rests on: EV-0013 · EV-0014 · EV-0015 · EV-0019 · EV-0022 · EV-0023 · EV-0216 · EV-0045 · ground R5
Would be confirmed by: The 1938 conveyance plan showing the house parcel excluded.
Would be refuted by: The 1938 plan including it. Cuts against: paper title was not in issue in 1987 (E26), and the NLW 33-acre limeworks bundle (1876–1912) fits a letting that ended in 1912 rather than a sale (E43).
Status: Open (ground R5, scores a1 b3 c2 d1)