Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-05-21 00:00:00

was sworn it

SURVEYOR OF WASTE LANDS

. The Steward : This is another appointment of some im-
portance, as the officer will have to sec that the public are
not robbed of their rights by having their land enclosed.
As a Conrt Leet we have not the rigt of making

pointment, but as this is also a Court Baron as well as a
Court Leet, we have the power.
_ _ _

At the suggestion of the jury, Mr. Langsdale was also
appointed to this office, it being understood that the duties
connected therewith more immediately affected the Lord of
the Hundred, but the public rights had to be regarded and
respected.
Several other appointments were made.

PRESENTMENT OF ENCROACHMENTS AND PUBLIC NUISANCES.
The Reeve then made the following proclamation :
" If any one can inform this court of any felonies,. or blood-
sheds, or of any misdemeanour, nuisances, or any other
matters or thing, now given in charge, and injnrable at this
Leet, let him come into court and he shall be heard."
The Steward : Are there any presentments to he made ?
The Reeve : There is one of an encroachment at Bab-
bington. [Here he handed in a plan of the premises, which
was disputed by the jury, and from the conversa:ion that
followed, it appeared that. it was an encroachment made by
Mr. John Clarke, of New Ferry, Mersey Rank.]
The Steward : Is it an encroachment on the public
rights ?
The Reeve : There is no doubt of it.
The Steward: It seems that the present surveyors, as
they call themselves, and the turnpike trustees, allow any
person who like to encroach upon the public rights.
The Reeve :.A part of the road has been taken in.
A Juror : Has the road been measured from the centre.
There ought to be fifteen feet from the centre.
The SurveyOr : The hedge has been taken in, but I have
not measured the road from the centre.

The Consideration of this case was adjourned for the sur-
veyor to make the necessary measurements.

DEIIIIINGTON,

A presentment was made that Mr. John Millington, the
occupier of some premises in Lower Bebbington, had made
an encroachment on the public highway, in a lane leading
from Lower to higher Bebbington.

The Surveyor described from— a plan, the nature of the
encroachments.

Mr. Waring, of Bomborough, came forward, and stated
that he was the owner of the property, and said the houses
he had erected were in Heath-lane. He admitted that the
plan produced was correct, and also the statement
of the surveyor, but stated that, what he had done was
done by the sanction of the overseer in public
meeting assembled, \ and that he had paid them
£5 for allowing it; and beyond that, he had given a
piece of land to the township, at the back, for making an
improvement, and, after all had been done, the Rev.
Mr. Fielding considered it a great improvement to the
township.

The Steward : This court has nothing to do with what
Mr. Fielding, or any other person, consider an im-
provement ; the question is, have you encroached upon the
road ?

The Surveyor was sworn, and stated that it was an
encroachment.

Mr. Waring : But I had the permission of the overseers
and gave them £5.

The Steward : The overseers had no power ©f selling.
the highway, no more than any other person ; and yonhave,
been mislead by them.

Mr. Waring-called a witness, who stated that he con-
sidered the alteration made an improvement, but, at the
same time, admitted that it was an encroachment.

Mr. Greene. solicitor, was in attendance to watch the
case on behalf of the crown, and explained the law to
the owner, and quoted from a case reported in the law
books of Rugby Charity v. .Merrytveather, which bore
upon a point raised.
. .

The jury having, after some consideration, inspected the
plan of the premises, imposed a penalty of £25 for the
encroachment,, at the same time recommending the de-
fendant to erect a wall in front, with a palasading, and
gave him three months to do it in ; but intimated that,
unless it was commenced immediately, a further fine would
be inflicted at the next court for continuing it. This the
defendant consented to do.

THE BEBEINGTON SURVEYORS,

A presentment having been made of a dilapidated gutter
in Cartwright's-lane, which-was in such a state as to be
dangerous to carriages, the Court ordered the surveyors to
construct a nine-foot drain across the road in fourteen days,
and inflicted a penalty of £5.

Mr. Shakeshaft, of Robby, was fined £5, for having
erected a pig-coat, which encroached five feet on the public
road, and ordered its removal.

ENCROACHMENT BY A CLERGYMAN

•
The next presentment made was that against the Rev.
Mr. Price, of Papkgate, Neston, who had made an espla-
nade in front of his house, which encroached on the public
road eleven 'feet at one end, and five- feet at the other, for
a distance of 144 feet.

The plan of the place having been, inspected by the jury,
and the surveyor sworn to its correctness. a fine of £5 was
inflicted, with an order that it should be immediately
removed, under a further penalty of £l5.
The presentment for a person having appropriated a
portion of land belonging to the public, who bad a right to
the mail, &o.} was adjourned until the next court for
consideration.

THE LATE CASE OF TREASURE TROT[

Some time since, it will be in the recollection OS our
readers, that a person found 2,000 silver shillings, of Charles
I. and 11. in a jar, at a place called Stanney, within this
hundred, and afterwards disposed of them, and, at the time,
much litigation took place.

In reference to thii case,
The Reeve said that, having heard of the case, he claimed
the property for the Lord of the Manor, but the right was
%, disputed, and the case was taken to a higher court, and it
had lately been decided in favonr of the court, and the
parties had had to refund the money and pay all casts.
The Steward : This was a case that was much talked of
at the time, and one of the Liverpool papers (Post)
made some comments upon it and the jurisdiction
of this court, saying that we had no right to interfere
in it, and that it would never be returned ; indeed
that paper turned the matter into a joko; But

of a wall

would be I
were to be deep eneu

th
h to accommodate the la,

,riginally without being liable
.00ds at Liverpool, and which had

been extended to Birkenhead. In . estimating.compensation
they must consider not only the value of the. land, and the
inconvenience to the claimants, but the loss sustained by

•eason of their deprivation of any henefi6

vious acts of parliament. Ile would ask the, arbitraiois to
form their opinion of •the value of the land on the opinion
of three at least of the most experienced, gentlemen in
England. .There was a claim for severance, .by cutting off
land which was not taken from the water frontage, and the
value of which was thereby deteriorated. It might be
replied that access would be given to a new road ; but in
estimating the effect of severance they were not entitled to
look at what would be the condition of the occupier,
because the benefit conferred by the execution of the w'rks

he would enjoy only in common with his neighbour. In this
case, in addition to the ordinary compensation of 10 per
cent. upon the valne for compulsory sale, he should ask
for extraordinary compensation under the circumstances.
The first witness called, was Mr. William Hadfield,
secretary to the Salt Chamber of Commerce, who said : In
1819, I became secretary to the Birkenhead docks, and

continued so for three years, to 1852, since which time I
have not had much.to do with them. If the works of 1845
had been carried into effect, they would have given a deep
water entrance to Birkenhead. 'Vessels of large draught
can only get into. the Liverpool docks at certain states of
the tide, I • have made a comparative statement of the
number of Saturdays the Cunard steamers,. drawing 22 feet

of water, can and cannot get out of the Canada -ani
Birkenhead docks, with 7 feet 9 inches of water ore

sills. of the Canada, and 12 feet (tile proposed depth) at
Birkenhead, allowing 1 foot under the keel in each instance,
and making a total of 23 feet. In January, on the Liver-
pool side they can get out only.once— at Birkenhead, four
times ; there are five Saturdays in the month, and only on
one can they get in or out of the Liverpool docks. The
further comparisons are—ln February, one in Liverpool,
against three in Birkenhead ; March, 2 against 3 ;

April, 2 against 5 (every Saturday at Birkenhead) ;
May, 1 against 3;, June, 1 against 3 ; July, 2 against
5.; August, 1 against 4 ; September, 0 against 4 ;
October 2 against 6 ; November, 2 against 3 ; and
December, 1 against 4. Summary : Saturdays in the
year when steamers can get out of Liverpool 16, when they
cannot 37 ; when they can get out of Birkenhead 46, when
they cannot 7. I have made another calculation showing
that there are 101 days in the year when vessels drawing
18 feet (with 1 foot under the keel) cannot go in or out of
the Prince's Dock, with 6 feet over the sills, on every one
of which days they can go in or out of the Birkenhead
docks. There are -192 days when vessels drawing 20 feet
of water (with 1 foot under the keel) cannot get in or out
of the Liverpool docks. The coal trade has risen from
nothing in 1847 to now nearly 300,000 tons annually; it
is increasing rapidly, and 40 or 50 vessels are waiting to go
over, there not being dock space. The coal comes from

The superior quality of the coal commands the

; shipowners will not haver Liverpool coal. I see no
reason why it should not rise to a.million tons. There is a
good deal of trade in iron, iron ore, and rough articles,
and it is increasing. The timber trade has not pro-
gressed, but the 'place is calculated for it. The margin
of this plot is too valuable for shipbuilding purposes, I
should say.—Cross-examinedi by Mr. Lloyd : The period
I have spoken of was not a: prosperous one. In 1845-4
sanguine hopes were entertained. During the war I
was in Constantinople ; and on my return I found Birken-
head in a different position. Bbth Rendell's and Hartley'S
_ _re

which I based my calculations. I Cannot say whether the
Huskisson dock is not capable of taking in any vessel that
can cross the bar at the.. mouth of the river. Beyond the
dock company's warehouses there is not accommodation
for a goods trade at Birkenhead. Cotton is not brought
there. It is difficult to remove a trade from one side
to another. but the (1.----4 v not insunerable. TF

.inetut., is no,
Falcon, of London,. fn Marah took from Birkenhead' a full
and complete cargo from .50i odd shippers, for Shanghai. A
man can carry on his businessat Liverpool, and ship goods at
Birkenhead easily enough. The transfer of seats tif!business is
undoubtedly a work of time ; and I don't know any instances
of such transfer. I know that Great Grimsby wa.s.to take the
Hull trade, and has not,;: but Grimsby is 20 miles-away. There
would be six miles of-quay round the float, ankliabaut half of
it on the south side, where there is a large (entity of land
undisposed of, and there is railway communication. From
Birkenhead bylVallasey bridge to the north, reserve is three
or four miles, the shorter route being by Bilky's temporary
dam. I never bought any land in Birkenhead. Re-
examined : I think a large trade may be carried on in the.
Birkenhead docks by the Liverpool merchants. In Liver-
pool the wall frontage, I think, is about five miles—the
strand, I mean.. Some of the docks are further from,the
offices in Liverpool than Birkenhead docks. The great
feature at Birkenhead will be the saving of time to.ships,
enabling them to get discharged more quickly. I think the
owner of the cargo is interested is the economy of time, as
well as. the owner of the ship.. The great advantage of
Birkenhead is its railway communication; and there is no
railway system at Liverpool ; there is no spot where the
railway truck comes to the ship; and there are necessarily
loading and unloading. At the Stanley dock there is a line irs
connection with warehouses. Except that sot of besiteti.on
, which always attaches to a transfer of business, I see no
impediment to the transfer of trade to Birkenhead.
.Laverpool
Mr. Guion, merchant, said : I am the consignee to Ame-
rican ports from Liverpool of 40 to 44 vessels, of
about
1,500 tons each ; and I have often found ilico:ivn•
by means of
ienee
from large vessels being unable to, enter the r •
docks, on account of want of watch at the hiP
. the Liverpool and
had to unload and load partially in the they 8' I have
lighters. lam doing it to-day, and grid- it an incon-
venience and loss. The size of Yessela
~)e a great advantage to
New York trade is increasin.
with a deep water entrance, woold clock at Birkenhead,
-Allah at first. Shipowners
the trade, It would not ln r