The Sun. — London, England, 1824-08-14 00:00:00

C ; < ; ~.~ f ~` rN I "- Or, 0 4 " * T 4 trz• - •141 !tht ; , 4 ' • - • tt E 4 If • _ • 1 - 44/ 1 5 te,4 1.14 114". ,berat/Pt- Na NumnEß 9960. SATURDAY, AUGUST 14, 1824. CE SEVENPENOa. •ALL IN ONE DAY. a CARROLL hopes he shall have the plea • sure of adding the FOUR Prizes of 1:20,000 in the Often: Scheme (to be Drawn in One Day, sth OCTOBER) to the Four Prizes of £20,000, sold at his Offices in the short limo of Four Months ; and as he is now selling under the Last atul Concluding Orant of Parliament for Lotteries, he trusts his Friends anti Customers will not sutler the Lotteries to ex. tiro without taking a Farewell Chance at his fortunate Offices, IV, Cornhill ; 20, Oxford-st ree t ; and 7, Charing Cross, in the Pre ,Solt,me, which contai n s FOUR Prizes of £20,000, I lins otner Capitals, as under ; v i z . :—. . Y • - - £20,050 4 - . £5lO t • - - 20,000 10 - - • - 300 4 • - - 2,050 14 - . . - 200 • • - - 1,000 S h_t whole of which, together with the smaller Prizes, must he !illtr'yrtt on the sth of October, when the fate of every Number he decided. The greatest Novelty in the Scheme is, that not contain a Single Blank, for every Number must rasetre Five Pounds at least ! ! I t....._______ :toveidkeenelcae Itati proved * i‘ u mt than .onaof them.had,breathed a syllable of any damage' hay. ing,been .paid for them by the 'owners of these gesrs,• Wow not that a damning .proof nninat the pr ration Wrist not tantarnoont to a wmfessiort that' the fnjuries 'Whitt) the vessels had Ideated -were 'tented. ; • hot by • the stearsit but hy the mismanagement of those on board of them,' tkOt eagerness to pi:tee then:se/reit finder the spout ?' Hie Learned Friend had fi rst :gated that theite gears obstructed the passage he p t , ! ' h e n i :1 1 1 1 1 i d t e o w re w a n n t water r e y r y i v o t h r r ad: h It6A-1 h i s' an t3 n o e t' ai l v i 400 yards, that at low water they-were nat neetitttowled to moveatt ./lis learned friend heti dim 'proceeded ::complain, that Owes where ships of 1.1 feet drettght of sattter,had fe'pnerly navigated, were now only sailed olct lfy ship 4 of nine feet draught of water. Why had his learned 'friend done this ?* • The allip-ownera' of Newcastle had not instaucted him to. take this into his conside ration; and why . had he volunteered the cats of interests which were not committed to his. charge? Jlis own witnessed admitted that there must he• some quays along the river side, or there could be au trade. That admission was decisive as to his learned friend's case. ft proved that this was a question of degree, anti being a question of degree, how watt it proved that these gears were an obstruction to the annmerce or ' the river ? A witness had stated that the Corporation of New.. castle derived a considerable revenue from the duties itti the exportation of coals from that port. Whatever else might be' said against corporations, he had never heard it said that they were inattentive to their own interests. He 'therefore conceived that the Corporation of Newcastle were aware 'that it was their Interest to promote tile exportation of coal, and that the best mode of doing it *as to afford every facility to vessels entering and quitting their ports. Now, if they thought these gears an obstruction to the navigation of the ri ver, would they not have ordered them 'to be retrieved ? - They had never given any order of the kind, and that was another proof that these germs were not a nuisance. There was a Cor poration of the Trinity House at Newcastle unconnected with the Corporation of Newcastle, whose bounden duty it - was to take care that the river and port mattered no detriment, and to remove all obstructions as soon as they showed themselves.-- Had his !.earned Friend a brother or pilot of the Trinity House among his witnesses ? Not one. The jury then had a case of maritime nuisance before them, in which not a mem ber of the Corporation of Newcastle—not a brother of the Trinity liottee—not a pilot of the Trinity House—not a single juryman of the river—not a single ship owner—not a single person interested in the trade of the river was called, except is set of men who complained of the nuisance on one account, and wished to get rid of it on another. Could they then enter tain a doubt of the Verdict which they out ht to return ? Again he admitted that if the s t a i t h s w ere put down, the nthttber - of keels must he increased. He had wrung from the evidence the only use to which the keels were applied wits the loading of the ships. If that were so, the destruction of these gears would create a greater obstruction in the river than existed at pre sent. One of the witnesses has told them that such a circum stance would make it necessary to employ three times as many keels as now plied upon the river. If' that were so, then there would be three times as many obsirectioes as were now to be found in it. Ile contended, that so far from these solicit* ren dering the navigation intricate and difficult, they remiefed it less dangerous and obstructed. If, then, the question which they had to decide was not a question of encroachment, bet of utility, he called upon them, as conservators of the rim Tyne, not to put down that system which, during a period of 50 years, had contributed to th e success o f the town of New castle, and the benefit of the county of Northumberland. If the evidence on the part of the defence had been more corn. plete and less contradictory than it was, he would have called upon them to have respected a quern which was already war ranted by age—which had existed more than than 20 years, and which had every external appearance in its favour of Its utility. They would not forget that a Jury at Newcastle had over and over again refused to And this indictment for a nuisance. 'Was not that a proof that those who were best acquainted with these smiths considered them not prejudicial, but beneficial to the town? Ile was old enough to recollect when the town of New castle was little more than an obscure village, and when there were preen fields in many of those places where there were now spacious streets and elegant mansions. hied it arisen to its pp sent state of prosperity in consequence of these gears facilitatteg its commerce, or in consequence of their being an obstruCtion, impediment, and hindrance to the navigation of the Tyne?* He would leave them to answer that question as they might think fit, and would in conclusion only submit to them that these staiths, or gears, ought to be supported, and, in point of law were no nuisance. Mr. BROUDIIAM rose to reply, in consegnence, as he saki, of Mr. Scarlett having given a plan to the Jury, and having stated several cases to them. With all dispatch, )." NEW SOUTH WALES, and VAN DIEMEN'S LAND, VAN DIEMF.N'S LAND, and NEW SOUTH WALES, TILE rpmarliably fast-sailing cop pered SHIP , ttricat CRAWPORD, JOHN aik Of BATE, Commandri-. Iturtlien 370 Tuns. Lying in the London Duck. Has find Ac commodations for Cabin and Steerage Pas- Fur sengers. and Irlll,C";ll4AtikA"Nl:3l:g:"';ktP-114'14et.0 nUCKLP-S' BAGSTEitt LOVE Alp BEAUTY. 1. This Day Were published, THE NEW ART OF LOVE, Froratis- P, 8,„ ISEAUTY iece and MARRIAGE CEREMONIES In all Na.ißms, 4 11.914. with Nine PI des. price 11.10 s. ti„ 3 ,; "It • itoßEßTovs c'ELEaRATEn BOOK, Fifth Edi• Plates, price 11. is. The 'ther e by Tuom.ki urrLE, Esq. ny 4 i4 n43 , 1 .11.,,.11C INS T'I'TUTES of YOUNG MOTHERS. S elf dooms Little. To which are pre fi xed, Instructions 4, • euafanagement doeioc Preiznancy. ily the We- Sir hard Croft, Hart. l'rice is. i;il. 6. 1 ", E ,: 1"1 :ERS betwe en th e l ate MATTHEW BAILLIE, ul'Aiciar i In His Majesty, and Dr. nouEwroN, un Ilie _GEN It ATIVE SYSTEM. Price Is. Stochtl, le f Pell Mall, 24, Opera Colonnade. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. YORK, WEDNESDAY, AVOUST 11. 31r. ScattLEvr denied that Mr. Brougham had any.auth right, and the Judge ruled that he had nat. illr. Justice I YLL Y, in summing up the evidence, observed that wherever there was a power of passing over a navigable river, in that place ther e was a right of wa y t o a ll th e Ki ng ' s sub jects. Ile hehl, however, that a - navigable river was tier other purposes titan the mere right of passage, and alga those purposes often suspended and narrowed that right. Where there was a large space of water, part alit might be applied to time purposes of commerce; and where great public benefit arose from that abridgment of the right of passage, it made it no nuisance. In the present case, if they should be of opinion thatwhat bed been taken from the passage had been taken for a useful and beneficial purpose, and that enough space had been left for the enjoyment of the right of passage, they would find a verdict for the defendant. le, however, they should think that it had not been taken for a beneficial purpose, or thatf - sofficient space had not been left for the right of passage, then they would And a verdict for the Crown. They would likewise find a verdict for the Crown, if they were of opinion that part of the gear ran too far into the water ; and in that •case he should be obliged to them to specify, in their verdict, of how man feet that part consisted. After several other observations, the beamed Judge bade them consider of the verdict. Some conversation ensued between Mr. BuotmiliAm and the Learned Judge, during the absence of 'the Jury, respecting the manner in which heshould apply to the Court of Kin g ' s B enc h to review the direction of the Learned Judge. We were not near enough to hear the particulars of the conversation, but we understood that Mr. Justice Bayley pledged himself that Mt. Brougham should have the opportunity he wished. Mr. BROUGHAkt said, that he was afraid he could not, as Lord Ellenborough had ruled that no motion coold be made for a new trial in case of indictment, as it would militate against the general rule of law, that no man shall be put upon :his trial twice fur the same otfince. The Counsel for the defence said that they would consent in cane a verdict was given for the defendant, to Peourr of moving for a new trial, on the g round of the iiiiiidlreen the learned Judge on the law of the cast. i The Jury then returned a verdict of Not GNi NT I L. ( &fort Mr. I ..7,, I PORTA stice BAYLEY a n d A a .S'peelui Jury. 1 TILE KING v. RUSSELL. This prosecution occupied the attention of the Court from 4.11-past eight o'clock in the morning till half-past eight o'clock at night ; and appeared to excite great interest. It arose out of a recent quarrel between the Keel-men and Ship-owners of Newcastle; and it' it had been conducted to a successful tenni. °mics, would have thrown the principal trade of the river Tyne into the hands of the keel-men. When the list of Special Jurors w il called ov er , t h e following Gentlemen answered to their 1 4 ea ..,.... r 1,,, tit F. Boynton, Sir W. Strickland, Sir T. Sykes, T. Wilson, , , P. Saltmarsh, Esq., J. R. Fowles, Esq., H. Ist asterism . : , ' ll ,', H. Croft, E s . T;Smith, Esq., E. S. Strangwri, E I. Tile Other J uror: l l ' l(A appearing, two talesmen we e put on t he Jury. S h• Pant stated that this was an indictmentpre Cliarl ther indivititta , o 1 f r erect. ferred against ea Russell, Esq., and various cill)1( 4 nuisance in the river Tyne. talfK i nt the defendants with havin g T e h r e e r c e te w d e g re ea v r a g rio n u n s ti e ti o ta u j i t t i ts i s: leo struetion of the navigation of the said Wye', and also Rid, keeping vessels d efers before th p l ead ed ea for an unrea sonable time. The dants had " could not Not GuiltY."-- iie ll,* , re .h.ed been a suggestion, that an impartial trial 1a . sofi au in the county of Northumberland, and4het , enire had in ileryuence been removed into the county of f or k. BROMII IAIL—Though on every acco unt but one he sr"salt satisfied that this indictment had been brought frotntle itY of N orthumberland to be tried by the respec table r urY whom he then saw before him, there was still one 4, 414(1 in ► which it would have been more conyenient had tor • e cYmbetZ e je e ry th t e it y ken from the vicinity of the . river T yne ; would themselves have viewed ths nutio -1)4, ' l ce, and would so have saved him the necessity of_statmg co ' le l", Itt length the circumstances of which this alleged nuisance n "ted. The model which they saw upon the table would greatly,. usin him and them in the statement he should be Cr " die d to offer to their consideration. The defendants were ), ' e PritlclPal members of a large coal druperty company ; an d as thei r lar in the neighbourhood of the Tyne, they though t ir e co ru i p ur ,:, _ , 4 la view of lessening the price of the carriage of the _ tiss from their Pus to the river, and of increasing their . o a w n n . ',.‘,l'; lto erect certain structures on the banks and in the ch re 7•••., of ithatigveat awl commercial river. These structures we r. . 11 ° P e g u e t' es i ° t4ll witY, rais e d a considerable height above the sus ) 3 6 t -,. ~ t.,te ground in the neighbourhood of the Tyne, and 1 .. ' c 'euove the level of the river . The breadth of these rail. of ti Y. , B ..i tl , H° l less than 36 feet, and their length from the ed ge .e other towards its centre was in one case R 42, and in tt_ 44,3 " fe et. The channel was in this part of the river only Yards in ei 1 1 up oiie.tenti u 41, so that one of these structur es _ took width. I Part, and the other one-ninth part of i w hole _ whethe r op litre, it" 'night almost stop and ask the Jury ~ is was possible to entertain a doubt as to its being a i tii -u tt " t lee3 an lobo o truction, an impediment, a detriment, and ut . i nnuYance ll persons using the river to have a tenth part Li o t both up against them, when they had a right to navigate. l: ugh the whole width of it, if it were a navigable river at o,44J:belie structures, which were formed of immense piles of 14 r and iron, which shut up' the river for an ImMense num et Qf cubical yards, and which appropriated it during that skee entirely to the builders of them, were not the mere struc tur : mof yesterday. The jury would find, that structures of a serio tr.,. ar nature had been in existence more than 40 or 60 years — dells, indeed, in magnitude, but hardly less in prejudice wtne navigation of the stream. Of these two structures, oldest fanned the substance of the present indictment, the ‘euest a built lbctut 23 the largest w as t h at called the West Gear; it wa s o Years ago; th e ot h er, which was called the East lies eti est2l was of more recent d ate , h aving been built, lie he m ,not more than three years ago. Having said so much , s , 1 a the more of these gears, he would now call their ettentio t n i to . the effect which they had upon the river and its ri atip on jirwjAt this stage of the proceedings, Mr. Vansittart, the ne. r of Lord Bexley, who had been summoned WI a special 2° s but who had not been present when two talestnen were zillinnelled upon it, informed Alr. Justice Bayley that he Wea l re "YI if 'required, to serve on the jury. One of the 11 Mel) was,,in consequence, discharged, by consent of AIL r , °l lbam,l ftr, U R *slu m . °Lruitast then proceeded.--Ile was glad of the in_- hi ni v l s en Which he had just received, because it enabled oho mention a circumstance, of which without it he enero lic liZt have been aware. lie had described to them_the at hi gh -.eft which these structures had made . on the river them they ate'; he would now tell them what encroach.. of the ri v e r, a e on it at low water. The whole breadth ece llider iv Z r e w „ t en hicii was then navigable, owing to a sand of very ell., iy qop a t - gtll, which laid opposite to these gears, was .olta 4 - 0 f fe et, and into that space these gears obtruded no less. trSatige„,, e .et• He epoke in round numbers, because it ' they were itlatee,wz: tt4tetehiely were a detriment, impediment, and annoy _ gaged in the navigation of the river, it mattere d) a u „ (tether he was wron • a few feet more or less. He would hac i"e . °litt he and the ', l "who were not much accustomed. to bua ti t (,),?,,bad heard th at a building was erected stretching out it aati tt o t y nki ; 4llee tr a n n w d a T ; would they .not be convinced that it was an • n?Pediment to them as they travelled upon It ? tosp ect r protrusion of a building upon a stream was in every Irs, ne t roductive of gieater annoyance ; for instance, nhigh duoer changed ; It was liable to receive no injury from the ettlitto4lue wind, or the sand ; but a stream, or. which an en -14" w as made) was liable to suffer from the effects of all those different causes. The first consequence that was likely to ensue when piles were driven in large masses into a bottom which consisted of loose sand, liable to be played upon by the force of the tides, was a collection of sand about those very piles, and a consequent obstruction of the natural current of the river. He would say no more upon that consequence, because he had so strong a case above the water, that, even if there had been no sand collected under the water, he was sure that he could establish the existence of a great nuisance. In the first place, buoys were placed off these gears, chains were fastened to them to keep them steady, and in those chains vessels often got entangled and received in jury. These gears, he need not tell the Jury, were not erected without a purpose. The purpose for which they were construct eed was to enable the waggons, which had brought coals from the pits, to he dropped into the vessels, and there he emptied of their cargoes. Formerly the coals were put into the vessels by a spout, which slanted down from the railway to the vessel ; on one of these gears the spout protruded 36 feet front the railway over the river, and on the other 30 feet. As the spout seas Mile times broken by the coals rushing down it, and as the great coal was generally smashed up by it with the small, another contrivance was hit upon for putting the coal on the vessel, and that was the contrivance which he had just mentioned, and was called " dropping."-1 Here the model was exhibited, and the manner of dropping the waggons more fully explained to the Jury. ]—The effect of this contrivance was, that as vessels got quickly loaded, a number of them were generally laying otr these gears to receive cargoes, and thus the passage of the river was in all cases obstructed, and in many cases rendered extremely intri cate and difficult. This was of itself evidence sufficient to esta blish the nuisance; hut there was another circumstance which lie could not consent to withhold from the knowledgeof the Jury. A great tide set in at these gears. They would hear it described by witnesses who knew it from practical and he might even add front dangerous experience ; they would be told that it set in like a sluice against these structures, and that a vessel work ing in it with a certain wind, and falling into that sluice, was almost certain of being carried against them. Indeed, from the narrowness of the sea-room, it was almost impossible to escape from the force of this impetuous torrent. They would hear front the witnesses that vessels sailing along the river, when the wind came from the south, had frequently been in danger of driving against these piles; sometimes had been run aground by their masters, in order to avoid driving against them ; anti at others had, in spite of every effort of those on board of them, been violently dashed against them. They would likewise hear, that if it were not for these gears, vessels might pass them with all winds; at present they could not, as the effect of the wind, blowing against them, was increased, and the force of the title in some cases was lost altogether. Indeed, the last quarter flood and the first quarter ebb was all the title that was now useful. That circumstance, if it stood alone in proof, would be sufficient to entitle him to their verdict. Ile would, however, go farther. He would show that vessels with 14 feet draught of water worked with extreme difficulty past these gears now, though formerly they could work past them easily in all winds. A present, sinless the wind was in one parti cular direction, they could not by any exertions get past themat all. No w , as t h e w i n d cou ld no t b e comm a nded at will, and was generally adverse in one out of every four cases in which it wets wanted, was it not a nuisance that vessels should he limited to one wind when formerly theycould receive the benefits of every wind ? and that perspns should be obliged to navigate with vessels drawing only nine • feet water, as he would prove to he the case, where they had formerly navigated with vessels drawing 14 feet. Ha would carry his case even still further than this: he would prove that vessels without number had been forced upon the sands, which had accumu lated in consequenoe of these gears—that some had got their masts and bowsprits entangled in the masses of wood of which they were formed, and that others of them had been damaged in various ways by the machinery for the spouts and the drops. How, then, the erection of these gears could be denied to be a nuisance, he must say, that with all his ingenuity, he was at a loss to discover. Ile had told them that of these gears one had been erected 24 or 25 years ago, and another only three years ago. With regard to the latter, he had just been in termed that lie was mistaken—it had been erected pretty nearly as lung as the other, but badreceived about three y ears ago a great addition to its ext e nt and magnitude. The point wise not important, for if the building were a nuisance, it war not the ' less so for having existed a few years more or less. The Learned Counsel then said he did not know what defence his Learned Friend, Mr. Scarlett intended to set up against this case; but, as he supposed it would be analogous to the attempts which had formerly been made to defend analogous encroachments he would beg leave to mention one or two cases to them. In the case of " the King v. Russell, G East, 427," the defendant, who was a waggoner, and had been accustomed for years and years to load his waggons before his warehouses, and leave them, when loaded, in a certain portion of the public.street, when in. dieted, thought it sufficient for him to show that there was a great space left by him for the King's sujects to pass along, and that even two waggons might pass through it abreast on the opposite side of the street. The Court, however, held this de fence very cheap, and said, that if the King's subjects had a right to a space over which four waggons could pass abreast, the defendant had no right to appropriate two to himself.— Similar doctrine was held in the case of " the King v. Cross," reported in 3d Campbell, which was an indictment presented by Mr. Drummond, the banker at Charing-cross, to get rid of the nuisance and obstruction occasioned by the plying of stages at Charing-cross. The case, however, which most resembled the present case, was " the King v. Lord Grosvenor." Lord Grosvenor having erected a wharf on the bunk of the Thames, was indicted for a nuisance. His Lordship endeavoured to show that this wharf was a great advantage to the navigators of the river, from affordin g them a shelter, which they otherwise had not, in certain winds. Ile did not that day expect to hear that these gears produced any benefit to the public. It was true that to the parties them selves they were productive of pure and unmixed benefit ; for they saved them all the expence of employing keels to load their vessels; and tkueenabled them to make the same profits at a less expense than those who were obliged to employ that kind of craft for such a purpose. In Lord Grosvenor's case, notwithstanding the convenience his erection affbrded to the public, it was held that, the convenience could not be set ott' against the nuisance; he was told that the Mayor and Corpo ration of Newcastle were the conservators of the River Tyne, and he should not wonder if he heard, as he was told that they were the real defendants in this case, that they, the protectors of the navigation of the river, had given leave and licence to erect these structures which were such an obstruction and in. jury to it. The mode of granting that leave and licence was by empannelling a river jury, who, after hearing the parties, gave a licence to A. 8., under the conservators of the river, to erect a certain building on its banks and in its channel. The jury were accustomed to meet anti talk about the presentment ( ' in the morning; they then met again in the evening and ens gaged in festivity; and he was given to understand that their proceedings in the evening were in generalmuch longer than their proceedings in the morning. Ile. was informed, that on both occasions, their proceedings had little to do with water, and that the river stream claimed much less of their attention than a stream of a much more generous and enlivening nature.—(A laugh.)—The ;?resentment, however, was then matte; and in consequence of some such measure, these structures had been built for which Mr. Russell was at present indicted. lie would now mention to the Jury another point in which the case of Lord Grosvenor resembled the present case. The Corporation of London were the conservators of the river Thames, and had granted their leave and licence to Lord Grosvenor to erect the wharf which, he built. As a Citizen of London, he always wished to speak of that Corporation, and to hear it spoken of, with every feeling of respect and affection; but when Lord Grosvenor's case came before the Court, the Corporation had not been spoken of with the same tenderness that he should have applied to it, because it appeared that it had received some small suns of money for the privilege which it had grant. ed to Lord Grosvenor. Lord Chief Justice Abbott, in speak ing of this leave and licence, had said, " Will you contend that you have a right to narrow the river at your pleasure, if you leave sufficient room for the navigation of it? If you will ‘ then 1 must say that you certainly have not the right." And again--" If the erection be a nuisance, no leave or licence given by any body receiving a pecuniary compensation for it, will justify it." And again, in summing up the evidence, he told the Jury that the question tar them to decide was, not whether the whart conferred private advantages upon a certain class of individuals, but whether the public convenience was affected by the alteration which it made in the current of the river. This, be it remarked, was the observation of the Learned Judge with regard to an erection made between' the high watermark and the low water mark. It applied, therefore, with still greater force to the pre sent constructions, which encroached on the channel at low water so as greatly to impede and injure the navigation. Ile had before told them that lie was glad on every account but one that this case had been reserved for them to try, and lie was glad of it, because this bill of indictment had been three times thrown out in the county of Northumberland. Mr. Justice Ilavta: r —You cannot go into that topic, Mr. Brougham. Mr. IIItOUGHAM.—I mention it merely to account for the delay which has occurred in jresenting this indictment. Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—Very well, but you know that 110 time can run against the public, Mr. BroughaM. Mr. Bnouattam was well aware of that point ; but as in a case like this, he could not anticipate the nature of the de. fence, he felt it his duty to say a few words on every species of defence which might possibly arise. He had given the best answer in his power to the twat species of defence which he thought it likely for his Learned Friend to adopt—namely, the licence under the corporation ; and he had been going to ex plain the reasons why so long a period of time had elapsed without any thing having been done to abate the nuisance of which he complained. One reason was, that the coal-owners, who had pits contiguous to the river, had brought all their power to hear in favour of those structures, and that the dif ferent coal . merchants in the town of Newcastle, and in the cor. poration of that town, were bound by their reepective Interests to give a strenuous support to the alleged nuisance. This was proved by the difficulty which had attended the getting a bill of indictment found a ga i nst t h e present d e f en d ants. No less titan three bills had been thrown out, and the present bill had not been found by a jury of the town of Newcastle, but by a jury of the county of Northumberland. The last topic, to which his Learned Friend would resort, was the motives which had led to the present prosecution ; and he expected to hear him say, that it was not instituted for the benefit of the public, but for private pur poses of certain individuals. For his own part, he cared not one straw about the motives which had led to it. Every man, by the law of England,had a right to institute proceedings for an offence of such a nature as the present; and the whole question for the .Itiry to decide would be, " has an encroachment been com mitted ?" and for the Court, " does the encroachment proved constitute a nuisance ?" He must satisfy their minds that the encroachments of which lie complained had been committed ; after he had done that, he was sure that his Lordship would tell them that they constituted a nuisance in law. It was quite ridiculous to reflect severely upon the motives of those who Instituted this prosecution. He had never heard of any nuisance having been put down solely from the love of coun try or mankind. Ile supposed that his Learned Friend would contend that no nuisance ought to be abated where those genet.- ous motives did not prevail t but if he did so contend, he trusted that their good sense would lead them to neglect his arguments, and to recollect that public advantages in general arose out of the separate interests of private individuals. They must be aware, that if they had to wait until prosecute,,l had ceased to regard their own interests, and to have no (norm view but the bnefit of the public, their country, or mankind, they would have to wait a long time indeed before any nuisance could be removed. Such a practice might, indeed, lessen the numbers and expences of legal prosecutions, but it would put an end to all commerce upon rivers and highways, and would only in. crease the number of public nuisances. He therefore trusted that, on taking all the circumstances of this case into their con. sideration, they would see that public justice required them to find a verdict of guilty against all the defendants. The Learned Counsel then culled witnesses in support of his statement, who were examined at great length by the Counsel on both sides.—. question, and r E e c d e i t g t n o e p a e r rs ti o i l e is spo im t n , i t e l d le ia t t i c e l t y ai i l n s t o e f r e tli ed e e i v n id t e h n e ce were unim. portant. For that cause, and the very great space that would be occupied by it., to the exclusion of matter more attractive to the general reader, we have omitted the whole of the evidence. The entire interest of the case, indeed, is comprised in the speeehes of the eminent Counsel who led for the prosecution and the defence. At the closeof the evidence for theprosecution,M r. B not: ti having intimated to his Lordship that that was his case, Mr. SCAR I.ET T commenced his address to the Jury, by ex pressing his regret at being compelled to address then' at that late hour of the day, and in his and their common state of ex. haustion, upon a cause which, though it contained but little dif ficulty, was of vast importance to all the parties engaged in it. Of all the important ease* in• which he had been engaged in that Court. none was ntons itapootant in its conirquence than the case which his Learned Fril fl that day opened to them. In. deed, the grounds on which ft had been submitted to their in vestigation,byiii s and ,e awrrlitei,cilillttd Friend,bee e n le s a ta ri te y d pro to them withvetithegregaret import_ can . dour pornt.. ance which was attached to it, not only by the prosecutors, but also by the defendants. Whether the success of the present prosecution would operate to the advantage of the keelmen or not, he would not ask the Jury at that moment to determine; but this lie would say, that it would do more to ruin the trade of Newcastle than anything which a Jury had ever before had it in its power to do. That these structure,* had not only in jured, but that they had a l so actually improved the trade of that town, was in proof, even upon the prosecutor's own evidence; for he had shewn to them, th a t t h oug h one ofthese staiths had been built twenty-four, and th e ot h er twenty years, it was not till 1822 that any complaints were made against them, or any threat was heard of indicting them as injurious to the naviga tion of the river Tyne. It was not till the year 10'.i2 that the last great strike took place among the keelmen of Newcastle, when, after a long struggle, they were put down by military force, and compelled to return to their usual occupations, that they discovered the obstructions which these gears caused to the stream, and determined to remove them, if possible, in re venge for the resistance which had been offered to their demands for higher wages. After holding many solemn and serious councils among themselves, they came to this conclusion —that as there were now only MO keels in the river, the best way of increasing the number of them would be by prostrating the staitlus by process of law__a consummation which, if it could be carried into effect, would double and treble the number of keels employed in the river, w ou ld l eave t he whole trade of Newcastle :for the coal trade attracted all the other trades to that place after it) at the mercy of the keelmen. They thou g ht that by such a notable project they should be enabled to inter, rapt at pleasure the supplies coming from the collieries conti guous to the Tyne, that they should be enabled to stop at pleasure die transit of coals to Shields—that they should be enabled to cut off, when they thought fit, the supply of coals to the London market—and, in short, that they should be enabled to produce such effects by it on the coal-own. ers of the Tyne, as would compel them on any future occasion to comply with all their demands, however foolish, and however extravagant. He admitted that they had received a wise coun sel, when they were told that if they had any just cause of corn.: plaint against the coal-owners, the best thing that they . could do would be to appeal to the laws, and now that they had made that appeal, and produced all the evidence they could get to substantiate It, he said there was no reason w h a t e ver for calling _those gears a nuisance, or for styling them an obstruction, im pediment, and hindrance to the free navigation of the river. Ills Learned Friend had told them that upon this subject he would not hear of any compromise between the advantages and disad vantages occasioned by the direction of th ese gears. li e h a d to ld . tliemthat he cared not a straw whether the encroachment which they made on the river was one foot or thirty feet, because if they should be of opinion that an encroachment was made, his case was proved, and the nuisance was established. On that point he differed tutu cola from his Learned Friend. Bef ore , h owever , h e called their attention more particularly to it,he would beg leave .todeny the analogy which his Learned Friend had set up between obstructions upon luihways and obstructions - upon streams. f His Learned Friend tad said, if an encroachment made on a highway he a nuisance, a fortiori, it is a nuisance when made upon a stream. Ile dissented entirely from that proposition, not. upon any li g h t an d idle grounds, but upon the hest and most ancient authorities of law—authorities which, with their permission, he would shortly cite to them. Let them look a little ut the subject. .A port, or a navigable river with at port, is not only of advantage to the public, as far as regards the na vigation of its wat e r s , but also as far as regard s t h e f ac ili t i es which it affords fbr the loading and unloading of vessels, and the other 6rdinary purposes of commerce. Now, as a port was only. of utility on account of the facilities which it afforded to conimerce, it was clear that the more those facilities were in creased, the more also was the utility of the port increased. A tier of vessels lying in a river was pro Santo an obstruction to its navigation ; but as it was fear. the general benefit of the public, and for the furtherance of commerce, it could not be considered as a nuisance. A quay, which all the witnesses for the prosecution had stated to be an invention very beneficial— nay, absolutely necessary to commerce—was not, if placed be low the low-water-mark, to be considered as tin abstract ob. strtiction to the water-course, but was to he considered with regard to the superiority of its advantages over and above its disadvantages. The ease of Lord Grosvenor, on which hits Learned Friend relied so niuch, was in many respects dissimilar from the present, and that the Jury must have of themselves, conjectured, from the curious manner in which his Learned Friend had selected his extracts from it. But even if that case bad been much more similar to the present than it was in point of fact, be would tell them that, with all the respect he felt for Lord Chief Justice Abbott, he had never been satisfied with the Nisi Prim decision of his Lordship upon that occa sion. In that Very case he had been Counsel to Lord Grosvenor, and as the facts Were rather curious, he would state thee) to the Jury. Here the Learned Counsel stated the circumstances o g f ue i s t, tio w n hi w cl i i l w h ati ti t te of i t t i l n ry ie froth whether a wharf, which had been built on his Lordship's land , h Pr ad ev to ent d s e i t t enti s itneik4thattincage.e 'laic, and also in the channel of the Thames, between lilillbank and Vauxhall.ltridge, by some of his tenants, with his consent, was of public advantage or not. It wits proved, that at that time there were no houses, no warehouses, no trade in the neighbour hood of the wharf erected. The Lord Chief Justice held that it was erected upon mere speculation, and that, as there were no advantages proved to be conferred upon the public by its erection, and as some disadvantages were proved to have accrued from it, it must be considered as a nuisance. The consequence was, that laird Grosvenor was acquitted, though some of his tenants were found guilty. The matter was of no importance to his Lordship, and therefore no attempt was made to have any of the positions laid down by the Learnd Judge reviwed by the Court of King's Bench, especially as s t! e indictmen e t itself was I afterwards abandoned. On that case his Learned friend relied more than any other I but he was sure that the Jury would see that its authority went as much with the defendants as it did with the prosecution. lie would, however, state to them a case in which he had himself been engaged, and which was more analogous to the present than any which his Learned Friend had cited. A good many , years ago, when Sir Vicary Gibbs was Chief Baron of the Exchequer, an information was filed by the Attorney-General in the Exchequer, under the direction of the Admiralty, against several persons, for the purpose of putting down all projecti ons , w h ar f s , an d o b struct ions in the harbour of Gosisort and Portsmouth. • The Bishop of Winchester wax entitled to all the mud lands left by the sea in the county of Southampton, between high water-merit and low water-mark. A great many of his tenants had constructed walk, and wharfs, and other buildings projecting into this harbour,which was spe cifically the King's ,port, being intended for the security and preservation of his vessels of war. The information was filed against the Bishop of Winchester, against some of his tenants, and also against some gentlemen who did not hold under him. The defendants were ten in all. The matter was deemed so serious and important, that it was tried at the bar in time Court of Exchequer. On that occasion this proof was made out by the engineers, that every projection into a harbour was an ob struction, pro taut°, to the navigation. The late Mr. Bennie, with whom he was acquainted, and for whom he felt great respect, deposed, that in every harbour it was neces sary to have as great a reflux of water as possible, in or der to cleanse it of sand, which it would otherwise accu mulate ; that all projections diminished the reflux ; and that in that particular case, though they had then clone nu injury, he w a s c o n v i nce d that eventually they would do mischief. He had cross-examined Mr. Rennie upon that occasion, and had extracted from him this extraordinary , confession—that the most perfect harbour would be one which had neither wharf, projection, or ship in it. He admitted, however, that perfect as such a harbour would be for the purpose of navigation, it would be of no earthly use whatever. After the case bad occupied the attention of the Court for two whole days, the Court, which consisted of Sir Vicary Gibbs, the Learn ed iaron Thompson, and air. Barad Wood, now just deceased, after a full and solemn deliberation, directed the Jury to acquit the defendants. They told the Jury, that if they found the projections in queetion to be advantageous to the port, not withstanding the light in which the Attorney-General had put the case, the defendants must be acquitted, and they were acquitted accordingly. A passage in Lord Hale was parti cularly noticed in their judgment by those Learned Judges. it was in that part of his Lordship's works "de Portlbut Maris" in which he enumerates such nuisances as are common to all men that have occasion to come, go, or stay at ports. His Lordships words were as follow—" The straitening of the port by building too far into the water where ships or vessels might have formerly ridden—for it is to be observed that nuisance at o i r ,ne i : i ic o isi t :r t t i ,e u ce isance in such a case Is a question of fact. It is not, v f e b r r y t b h u a i t h w i i o n: ild bel de u s w ti :h y i ew quays t u e n r y i ‘ m t m h rk a , t r o e !. in every all ttl7eilpo4i7rtsibelinoEwntheglanlodw,. us e s t 4llllri he;:r act e w a i ll icl b ) t l i s ilt ip b 3 e o lt l sw iw t t l ° me in h l ig aw h water mark, for otherwise vessels could not come to them to unlade, and some arc built below the low water mark. And it would be impossible for the King to license the building of a new wharf' or quay, whereof there are a thousand instances, if ipso facto it were a common nuisance; 'for the King cannot license a common nuisance. Nay, in many cases it is an ad vantage to a port to keep in the sea-water from diffusing at large ; and the water may flow in shallows, where it is itnpos. Bible for vessels to ride. Indeed, where the soil is the King's, the building below the high water mark is a purpresture, and an encroachment anti intrusion upon the King's soil, which he may either demolish, or seize, or arrest, at his pleasure ; but it is not ipso "het° a common nuisance, unless, indeed, it be a damage to the port and navigation. In the case, therefore, of building' within the extent of a port, whether it be a nuisance or not, is guestio facti, and to be determined by a Jury upon evidenee, anti not questiojuris." Such were the expressions of the law, as delivered by the Lord Chief Justice ; and in this Case, as in most others, the language of the law was time lan. guage of reason and common sense. He would now ask, whe. ther the question of fact, which they had to try, was simply ' whether these buildings were or were not an encroachment with the channel of the river ? His Lordship would inform them it was not. The question of fact which they had to try was this: does the encroachment in question aftbrd such advantages to commerce in general as to counterbalance time injuries which accrue from it to individuals in certain particular instances.— Now, upon that point he would ask, whether these gears had or had not contributed to facilitate the conveniences of trade, and consequently to increase trade in the port of Newcastle.— Let them look at the evidence which has been given in the course of the case. It was sworn that within the last 20 years the trade of that port had been doubled, and that the number of shilis clearing out of it had been i ncrease d i n t h e same proportion. It was a strange thing fur a man to submit to a -Jury a proposition like the following :—" I complain of the injury done to the navigation of time river Tyne by theta ob structions, and yet, notwithstanding their op erat i ons , I su bmit that the trade of the town within time last year is fully , doubled." But what were these obstructions ? Si~ by, of such a nature that one witness who had sailed up and down the river five dines every week for the last twenty years, had admitted that he had been only obstructed in' his passage during that period twelve times. Souse of the Jury had mos t probably been in the Temple-gardens. If they had, they would have seen a number of barges collected at Whitefriars wharf, obstructing the navi gation of wherries upon the Thames, much more than the evil deuce thawed that the vessels about these gears obstructed the nuvigation of the Tyne. Did any person ever think of indict ing the proprietor of ‘Vhitefriars wharf? No.—And why not? Because the necessity of' commerce rendered the obstruction cacosable. Others of them had, perhaps, gone clown to the pool to eat white-bait at Greenwich or tilackwall. Did they not meet with many obstructions on their way down the Thames arising from time prodigious magnitude of the commerce of Lon.: don ? And did they not submit with pleasure to the disadvan tage of it, when they recollected the great public advantage it bestowed on the country? He agreed with his Learned Friend that the private advantage of .any man who had an interest in, the railways from the contiguity of his collieries to the Tyne, was not to be taken into the consideration of time Jury ; but then it was with this limitation—that his private advantage was inconsistent with the public benefit. If his private advantage advanced the public interests, then it must be considered as part of them, and as such was entitled to receive the protec tion of the public. Ile likewise agreed With his Learned Friend, that they need not attend to the motives which had led to this prosecution. Butt here again he must put in a limitation ; and that was, unless the motives ofthe prosecutiongave *colouring us the testimony of witnesses. He was sure that, in sifting thud testimony, they would not look so much to private motives as to public consideration ; and here he would ask how it happen. ed, that out of seventeen witnesses which his LearnedYrtend bad called to prove the obstruction to the navigation of the Tyne, had only called 'a single ship-owner. In a prosecution in which an appeal was made to the Jury to protect the navigation of the Tyne anti time trade of the port of Newcastle, how was it that not more than one ship-owner bud been called out of the many ship-owners of the place, to support that side of the Ws* tion in which they most of all risen must be interested ? The absence of these :ship-owners was a strong negative proof that the commerce of the port was not injured and a strong affirmative proof to the same point, was the declaration of several wit nesses, that more than 600 vessels had cleared from these two gears in the course of one year. Another proof that the naviga tion of the river had not been injured, was to be found in this curious fact—that thong's many of the witnesses had deposed to differtnt injuries betitiling vessels off these gears, not more • 110111 i CI RCII I T.--111 A IDA'f(IIN 13, A vti. 11, This was an T t i ln W C*:l4.l:liLktignkiii' 1 1' (4 ' Q MI T anti II Walt d Wallis, for assaulting Charl es naives Jay, a Lieutenant of the Hairlines, employed in the smuggling preventive service; ht. Deal, on the 19th, of November hot, witb 14t e t i t to „wilier "eartTradtattyr-a, 67e'rti:o"n,nalttal: P/111,11.0TV. PAGE. Thig waA an action for - libels upon the plaintifF, in his eti 4 l.- racier of guardian of the poor 01. the piu of S t. virgin, at Dover, imputing to him frauti.ittul..mo ver " tia 22? e . hie o ffi ce. There were special pleas of juikifi cot i n , i La l n eoiurrai d ..yile,, all totri e nc g al i ci n o g lrpt t yl i t i k e tho t ease rt w it eh h oc o loe f maf ti m ie then li ics b e e dd il a t y ) y,. atu, part of to.uxtentw. Until the o.lal b ended, the cave cannot be raported. citOirti III) — I►iANSLAUaZt7ru. J o h n Drury was indicted for feloniously killing and slaying Zacbariali nyder, at Charing, on the 28th Alay last, by driving a wagg on over him—The prisoner tows found Guilty, '4114 sen tence-it-to three months imprisonment in the countyisil. IltunwAY Ronar.wr.--James Luke was indicted f" as saulting Anne Destiny on the King's highway, at Edenbridge, putting her in fear, and taking from heipertion two Brighton Bank-notes, las. in silver, and other articles, her prollialYi The prisoner said nothing in his def e nc e . lie Walt A°1411". Guilty, and sentence of death was passed upon hint IVilliarn Giles w as indicted for' the violation of a young woman named Mary Russell, on the 14th April, at I : tinmai. The Learned JUDGE said he thought e th e ease too t o gu to the Jury, and 'therefor* direct -au `acquittal. Verdict—, Not Guilty.