The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-27 00:00:00

anCLAL JURTKOT,

Several special jurymen were 1%44101. for non-attendance.
TEM IiNAMCI'S CANAL CLAMANT r. EAR MAJESTYS CON.

misawszas or WORYA, &a.
MU; was an action for trespass, &a The defendants
pleaded not guilty.
Mr. 31anisty. and Mr. Charles Pollock were counsel
for the plaintiffs ; the Attorney-General and Mr. WM/lon
were counsel fur the defendants.

Mr. klanisty, in stating the case to the jury, said the ob-
ject of the action was to try • question of peat importance
between the plaintiffs and defendants, via., whether the
crown, as the owners of the banks and slopes adjoining the
Regent's-canal on the north side, near the Zoological.
gardens, were bound to keep them in such estate as to pre-
vent their slipping or falling on to the canal and towing-
path, or whether it was the plaintiffs duty so to do. In
1812 the plaintiffs obtained an act of parliament
anthodaing the construction of the canal, towing paths, &a.,
and giving them powers to compulsorily take land for that
purpose. The plaintiffs proposed to take sufficient land in
what was then known as Marylebone-park, now forming •
portion of the Regent's-park, for making the canal, lux,
and the keeping up of the banks, but the crown thought it
would be better for the plaintiffs to take only suffi-
cient land for the canal and towing paths and pay
them damages for injury to the adjoining land in
converting it from an even surface to slopes. The plain-
tiffs assented to it, end the matter was referred to Mr.
Naish, the then crown surveyor, who considered that these
slopes, if planted with ornamental shrubs, he. would
greatly improve the building laud adjoining, from the beau-
tiful effect three slopes so planted would give to the neigh.
bourhood, and accordingly the plaintiffs paid the crown
3604 per acre for the land taken out and out for the canal
and towing paths, and 16W. per acre damages for the slopes ;
in all. 9.347/. for land and 2,0.16/. for damages.
The Lord Chief Justice Asked if there was any question
of fact in dispute, otherwise it would be better to make it
a special case.
The Attorney-General said they were nearly agreed as to
the facts. The substantial question was the liability to
maintain these slopes, not so much with regard to the
recent damage the plaintiffs complained of, but for the
future. It was more • question of law than of fact.
Mr. Manisty said the crown had met the plaintiffs in •
very fair and candid manner, and he thought it was better
to at once make a special case of it. It must eventually
come to that.

It was then arranged that any question of tact should be
decided by a gentleman of the bar named by the parties,
and a verdict was taken for the plaintiffs, subject to a spe-
cial case.

BERRIDGE r. CLARE&

This wu an action for trespass, &c. The defendant
pleaded not guilty, &c.
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., and Mr. Willoughby were counsel for
the plaintiff ; Mr. M. Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Horace Lloyd
for the defendant.

The plaintiff is the owner and occupier of the manor-
house, Ica., Hendon, which were freehold, and the occupier
also of certain leasehold property adjoining, belonging to the
defendant, and the attires was brought to deter-
mine the bounders, between the freehold and leasehold
properties. The defendant, Mr. Bolin said, was •
very excitable man, and unfortunately wan now
an inmate of • lunatic asylum. Before the learned counsel
had finished opening the plaintiff's case, it appeared that
each party had come into court under a mistake as to the
real question he had to fight. The plaintiff was under the
impression that the defendant claimed as part of the lame-
bold property the gate entrance belonging to the plain-
tiff's house, and the defendant considered the dispute was
with reference to the right to a cottage by the plaintiff,
which the defendant contested, and was admitted to be
p•rt of the leasehold. Upon explanation it WWI shown that
both were mistaken, but as some other minor points arose
in the case, they were referred to arbitration.