The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-11-11 00:00:00

Tilt LINO V. EVSSELL!

Mr. Bain:Guam renewed an application which he made in this
ease yesterday, fur a rule to slow cause why a new trial should not
be granted in this case. It sell an action tried at the last Assize
for York, before Mr. Justice Easley, in which a verdict was re-
turned fur the defendant. The question was one of great im-
portance, as it affected the imptirtant navigation of the river Tyne.
the trial was to have taken place at Newcsatle. but in order to
render the declaim mere impartial, and to divest it of local in-
fluence and partialities, it was ttansferred to Yurk. This gave rise
to considerable inconvenience, as it was with en small difficulty
that a Yerk Oury was made acquainted with the nature of die
nuisance complain:6d of. 'Die nuisance of which the plaintiff com-
plain:id, was the erection of large wooden buildings, called
'• Ours." These buildings were two in number, and were placed
at the distance only of Itill lea from each other. They were
erected for the facility of loading yeuels with coal. They occupied
and obstructed the navigation of the river. Their dimensions were
33 fret in breadth, and 7.6 feet in length. There was besides a
spout for the conveyance of coals, whereby, ou certain ()tensions.
those •• Gears," with the spout be alluded to, occupied the space of
192 lett ecross a part of the channel which did not exceed in •ieltli
542 yania. At high water, it was estimated that the intrusion thus
tic. taloned by tit -.se great wooden buildings, as he would call them,
was lit yards, which was unieu hat about a preportiou of the oteu-
patien of one-eighth of the channel at high wart' and one-ninth
at low water, eccrniieg to arcuate calculation. The question at
the trial was, wiwther these erections amounted man obstruction to
t;.e ef the river ? And hereby would take on opportunity
of remaking, Ow the evidence of nune of the •6 keel.men," who
were most iO the issue of the trial. was tendered, but the
I tesiitrun) relied upon was that of pilots, and priiripally of King's
riots. sulotanee of their tesoime.ay was, that the tile., both
lon the fie and the ebb, principally sets in viiim the" Gears:"
that they protrude into the deepest part ei the channel ; that
I opposite to them is a send haul, where even small craft
ca::tiqt nryigate, and that, except with a leitiling wind, and
etc:: then, at coin:Arable risk, it is dar:rerous to navigate round
•hem. in the apt rehension tit tilling fuel it them. It aas further
roved that they occasioned oinstructim not only to keel-men, but
ter al:or:ea.—to the f wiser. which- ca-ried coals only, and to
the Meer, which carried all sons of goods. Further evidence was
mt.:tn.:A ti, show. 01:3 in many instances the vessels were obliged
to delay Mr a tide, or to return back to the reaper:ire homes of the
owners. All these cireitinsiances, in his (Mr. Ittoughaties) mind,
en obstruction to the Kine's subjects. able!'

71(119,1111Cd to II nuisance. AN, he aAS here eci•trous ot nothing the
conduct of his Learned Friend (3lr. Searleit), who put to a plan
of these minions ipiite ddli•rent trout that which he put in. It in.
des reed to be described rather as a picttt:e Than a plan. Ilia
Learmal Friend, with an ingenuity worthy of hint, afterwards told
:he to wit!tdraw• this picture front their considcratitm, in order
to deprive the prosecuting Counsel ot the privilege of reply; and
he (Mr. Brougham) was accordingly deprived of the right of
commenting on the evidence. fie had now to notice the direction
of the Learned Judge (Mr. Justice Bayley) who tried the case.
In dif.etion to the Jury. he bid them that they were to con-
sider x!u:hers public ben..tit had been rendered by the erection of
these building,. equivalent and pin:mount to the Mconvenience
which the public experienced by the obstruction atid further,
whether a reasonable !TA' C wan allowed fur the na%igation of the
river.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY certainly admitted Ow he had 101 l it to the
Jury, whinlier the benefit was mie to countervail any inconvenience
that ini.;dit arise from the existence of the ereettim. Ilia opinion
was, that, with judicious manannuent. both parties might have
gone oft satisfied.
Mr. naottA it f there hail bees a set-seat the public advan-
tages obtained by the erection of the " Gears" on the one hard.
against the obstruction and inconvenience on the other, it would
then have been proper and fair to submit the question in that way
to the Jury ; but here the advantage was the advantage of indi-
viduals; it was a privaie and out a pubic benefit; the profits a ent
inter the pocket of an individual.
Mr. J usticv BAY f A Y.- It was an improvement in the modoefla,l-
- vessels, and would tend to render coals cheaper, arid 11:vre!,
publicprove a public benefit.