The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-05-31 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCL

COURT OF Kllsiol-1-nr—iieff. MOEDAY, MAY N.
COLIBUIRD O. MOLDER.*
This was an action for the hosed asidnn d the Wow
dent's wife and child the plaintiff wee the fill Oda liellimiant's
wife.
Mr. 0 MINTY otai MY. Ceirtir Wets oriadihir
azdatt the statement of the farrow Ittertifilad
ant,. who was a man in a IMF
had the misfortune to bring snsniinst
name of Collet, for criminal con
action he had feCOYerld a verdict withresberetisiblllsodle
Meta n the dea he had premised theohodiU ply fee
the board of his wife and child, let she aiimitiefillitgees= be what
it might. The plaintiff. apes *is SO SWIM
his daughter and her child, and haw grt
compensation from the del aehen Ihrese tido& itteisM ilia.
eel said, that if the wife of he Mende* lees if what had
been imputed to her, her mire might
although it could nor be justified, by the eandwilt et 11111
who had himself admitted having had ilititit eandminst with ether
females, so that he could not sue for a direrce is She rsatiesisatical
Court.
J. Taylor is nephew to the plaintiff—wu present at his hnuse in
February list when the defendant was there; he wee anxious to pay
for his wife's board, because ha said let the trial he Ilimiad Yew it
might, he would still maintain her—the plaintiff mid he ilspdd
maintain her as cheap as he could, for he did not wish so get any
thing by her—the defendant, either at this orogen ether dm% said,
that he did not intend to site for • divorce, became lorwmat into
court with clean hands, and that he could not de. aswsNlipt was
said about the child of the defendant's wife; the dellnkdopt NM it
might remain with its mother. The plaintiff resides at Whams!,
near Brompton, and is a smith—the defendant is an ireammiger in
a large way of business, residing in Union-street in the Borough.
Upon the witness's cross-examination, he stated that he was pre.,
sent at the aim. imn. trial brought by the present defendant against
Mr. Collett; he recollected that the defendan: expressed an opinion
that his wife's conduct in retard to her intercourse with a Mr.
Oliver was very improper; defendant's wife is witness's moan,
and witness has himself remonstrated with her upon the impro.
priety of her condueif regarding Mr. Oliver; this was emus few
days before their separation ; witness is the nephew of plaintiff's
wife ; at the time of the alleged discovery of the adultery, defend.
ant's wife's family did not. nor do they now think, she committed
adultery • witness used his best endeavours to reconcile the defend.
ant sad his wife ; does not recollect ever recommending him to take
her back to his house; witness was present at a meeting between
the plaintiff and the defendant after the discussion of the alleged
adultery ; defendant said that lie had sent his wife away; he knew
that she had ro claim upon her father, but' that he would pay for
her board be the issue of the trial what it might.
Upon this evidence the LORD CHIEN JUITICI asked Mr.
Sanlett, who, with Mr. Brougham, was Counsel for the defendant,
whether he could withstand a verdict against him ? the defendant's
promise, he said, made him liable, notwithstanding be could give
evidence of adultery on the part of his wife.
::CARLETT could not resist what his Lordship had lug-
gated, and the Jury consequently found for the whole amount of
the plaintiff's claim-641. 10e.
WATSON V. CLEIEENT.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who Is a linen-
draper, living at the corner of Surrey-street, in the Strand, against
the defendant, who is printer and proprietor of the Morning Ciro-
sick, the Observer, and otber papers, for en alleged nuisance,
arising from tiro erection and working of a steam engine and two
printing presses in the defendant's premises, which tinrcediately
adjoins those of the plaintiff on the west aide, and by the working
of which engine and presses the plaintiff was cansidrably annoyed
and injured.
The defendant pleaded the general ham!.
Mr. GURNEY and Mr. Commis were Counsel for the plaintiff,
and the following gentlemen were arrayed on the side of the defend.
ant, viz. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, Mr. SCARLETT, Mr.
COMNO24•STROLANT, Mr. BROUGITAM, and Mr. PLATT.
Mr. Gv t: EY stated the facts to the Jury, as they afterwards op-
peered in the evidence. In conclusion, the Learned Counsel ob.
served, that if the defendant would have built an interior
wall, and placed his engine at some distance from it, it was
very probable that the plaintiff would not have experienced
any annoyance (min the noise, or by the vibration ; but
that lie would not do ; and when the plaintiff tamplained,
the defendant said that the alteration would put him to
great inconvenience. If people, therefore, would act thus
they must bear the consequences. The defendant was a man of
great business, and lie believed of great property; all that the
pinintiff wished was, that he would exercise his own rights with.
out any annoyance to his neighbours : that was, in his opinion,
consonant with common sense and common justice. When the
Jury should have given their verdict, he dared to say that Mr.
Clement would then do that which he ought already to have done,
and which would have prevented the necessity of this action.
Michael Hayman, wine.merchant, Surrey-sheet, Strand—Wit-
ness's house is near the defendant's. Mr. Watson's house is at the
corner of Surry.street and next to the defendant's. The defendant
took the premises in question about two years ago, and began to
erect t=ie steam engine soon after; it has been in work about a year.
The effects of it in his cellar, which was under the house adjoining
the plaintiff's were yerygreat.The walls and thegiound vibrated,the
bottles rattled in the binmi, and the wine was dirturbed. Witness
recollected seeingshe plaintiff and defendant In conversation at the
corner of Surrey-street, and supposing they were talking on the sub-
jeerof the steam engine, he begged to add his protest to that of the
Flom
against the insufferable nuisance that they experienced
from the working of it. The defendant asid that he undeutood se.
vent of the nenehbenrs were annoyed by I', particularly Mr.
Ramie, a tailor, who lived in the house between the plaintiffs and
the defendant's. Alter. ions were spoken of by the defendant, by
which it was expected to alleviate the inconveniences complained
of. Defendant asked witness to go down and look at the ma-
chinery. Hmand the plaintiff accordingly went in and saw the en-
gine at work. Witness remonstrated with the defendant, on bring_
tog such a nuisance into such a neighbourhood, and defendant again
spoke of the alterations which he should make, and which would
abate the nuisance. Witneas replied that the only satisfactory al.
tendon he could make was to pull it down. The defendant an-
swered, that it had cost him several thousand pounds to put it up,
and that he would not take It down for 10,0001.—Nothing but a
verdict of a Jury in the Court of King's Bench should induce him
tonake it down. Mr. Watson complained that his house was ren-
dered unterantable by the nuisance, and he would certainly indict
it. Defendant replied, the Jury was then sitting, and that no ver-
dict of a Jury in any other court but the King's Bench would
satisfy him. Witness has been in the plaintiff's imuse while the
engine and the presses have been at work. and he found the whole
of the house in a state of concussion, and heard the noise of the en-
gine. This was in the day-time, during the noise of carriages pass.
ing in the street. The noise and concussion, in witness's judgment,
m..st-entirely destroy the comforts of the plaintiff and his family,
and rendered the hour: untenantable except for the operations of
business. _ _

Cross-examiner] by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—Witness had
been of plaintiff's house on a Saturday, and the noise was such as
to make it a very uncomfortable place of abode. An alteration was
made by the defendant in the machinery, about August last, which
in his opinion concentrated the whole of the nuisance on the plain.
tiff's head. Witness did rot mean to complain of the nuisance to
himself since the alteration, the annoyance to his premises being
thereby considerably lessened. Mr. Itawae's premises were con.
tignous to the defendanes.—Witneu did not know frum the plain.
tiff that Mr. Rawse had sold his premises to the defendant. Wit-
ness bad that Mr. Hawse left the premises because the nui-
sance drove him out of the house; hut he had since returned and
was now living there. Witness believed the engine was in the
front underground kitchen. He did not know whether it was leas
than a two-horse power. Witness had certainly heard the noise in
plaintiff's house during the day without any effort to listen. The
noise was very different from that of a hackney coach, although he
did not think that the rose of the engine was generally so great as
the noise of the street, which in that pan of the Strand was second
to none in London.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL asked the witness whether be
knew that there was a treaty between the defendant and plaintiff
for the latter to sell the former the premises ?
Mr. Guinn r objected to the question, and said that such a feet
could not be shown.

The Lono Cum, 111ITICZ Rid it woulk be very inconsistent
sometimes for a man in business to sell his property.
Mr. GURNEY—It is the plaintiffs own freehold, my Lord, 4nti
his business depends upon the iiitilatieff.
Mr. OullrEY then re-examined the witness, who said the alter-
ation was, he believed, that of bringing the machine from the
back to the front of the defendant's premises. The greater the
noise of the street in the day, the more desirable it was to have
some quiet at night.
Ann Blendell, servant to the plaintiff, examined—ln June or
July last witness perceived a noise proceeding from the printing-
offize. which was most frequent at night. The noise was a thump-
ing dawatigiag sort of Dora. The noise continued during the surd.
met awil matnenn of lest year, and occurred every night in the week.
The plaintiff's family were also greatly inconvenienced by the I
smoke which came from the tic of the steam-engine down the'
chimneys, and filled the rooms both night and day. Witness'a
master and mistress were obliged to remcve out of their bed-room
to another room to avoid the noise, and the bed is now placed in the
middle of the room, that it night not be so mach disturbed as
it would he if near the wait. The comforts of her master anti bme
family were materially lessened in consequence of this nuissa,-e.
This witness was cross-examined by Mr. SCAR LETT, but she
did not in the least degree vary from her evidence in chief.
George Lambert, shopmen to the plaintiff, examired—After the
mike and presses were put up on defendant's premises, witness
dept in the room where his master had formerly slept. Witness
was a pretty stout sleeper. find could not say that the engine had
e►er awoke him out of his alezp, but he had frequently heard the
noise when he awaked. He had never seen the well shake by the
concussion, bit he had felt it (a laugh); and he had seen the fire.
root tremble in the grate. during the time the engines and presses
mew wonting.

Mr. Hawse wag next asairefeed—ln Juana July last witness
was much laponeraleseed the andeak engine and presses
caltrricedom
when at work, and be • of it, who promised
to relieve it as meth ea Seem alterations were
Await,* ride, durin w , the witness slept in
lodgings, for which the INK The alteration relieved
the mineenibut ha Wjodriees itiiedete increased the ineonveni.
dues in dir. NVataon. The* hod Orr erne alterations since made,
but he amid Mak that tbe neidenni sent still be very great to the
*aid% mil if It one to bin, be Mould by no means approve
ir{stews by the A rroawrw.Gwirtitat...—Witne.s dig-
itised darken of his premises to the defendant after the alter.
lON bIA OM 0014 by dee removal of the engine. The defendant
gate Irmo the Morey be asked for the premises. The witness
bid ins *no* to remain in the house for a short time, for
=pis to piff s plater Ting than he had done before, and he
' hi tbe Moen} to theitiesent day.
Mat. Midgferi. seelikg is Neadelk.street, had been in the habit
Id mending is the *min knee for the last thirty years, and
bed always found it -t• be a carry quiet house till the engine was
arneled. This wermie oho melee as to the noise and concussion
case ed by the defeettidet's mashy when at work.
Mr. Overton, a arrenter, had dept in plaintiff's house four or
dweekno., and weralways disturbjel*tbe night by the engine and
greases be at xreek. lie had seen the engii r • the shaft of it
Tanner the wall of the plaintiff's rinse, end was.fixed in a post
that wee connected with the joists, and that was what occasioned
the viridian of the plaintiff's house. He considered the shalio.,
would damage the wall, and certainly kern the value of the
premises.
The Loan Cuter JUSTICE—Mr. Attorney-General, can you
meet these facts ; for you should remember there is another ma.
chine (looking at the clock) which is at work ?
The ATTORNLY-GENERAL—Not a very noisy one, my Lord,
nor I believe does it arse • great nuisance.
The LORD Cuss! JUSTICE—But. do you think the facts can
be altered I .if *ay suatiot the plaintiff must bare a verdict ?
TheAtToltariTsesarinAL—l think they can, toy Lord ; no.
thing is eider dim enipponien trench a case as this. The plain.
rid=sendaerebie peeper., et OAS, and I think I can make an
In evidence ; besides, time of the Jury have seen the
filiallkiffy. my. Lord, at full wok
Mr. Goadlew—Yes, but I b..te evidence to show how the en-
gine worked en that day.
The LORD CHILE Jure tcw--Then, if so, you must go em.
Mr. GURNICT•then called no lees than ten other witnesses, who
spoke to the engine and presses when at work producing very great
inconvenience to the plaintiff. It made the windows shake, and
if a person leaned on his hand, with his elbow on the table, it
carted a sort of tremor, and the ire-irons and glasses would clatter
and rattle in the room.
Mr. Guam EY said that was the plaintiff's case.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then addressed the Jul on behalf
of the defendant. There was one circumstance in this ease that
led him to be very sanguine of the result, and that was, that some
of the Gentlemen of the Jury had seen the steam-engiste anti
presses in full operation, and had thus had an opportunity of form-
ing their own judgments upon it. The defendant knew the kind of
ease he should have to meet ; that exaggeration was always ex-
tremely easy on these matters, but the defendant had resorted to the
bed mode of meeting it ; he had been desirous that the utmost care
and circumspection should be taken of ths view, in order that
the fall extent of the alleged nuisance should be made known to
the Jury; and he (the Attorney-General) would appeal to those
gentleman who had seen the premises, whether the appearances or
the things they witnessed at all bore out the testimony that had
been offered on the part of the defendant ? The Learned Counsel
then cdmmented co the evidence at some length, and dwelt upon
the I nprobability of the facts sworn to. lie felt he and his
Learned Friends who were with him would be abandoning the
intectst of they client, if they did not rill evidence to meet
the plaintiff's case. He should not trouble the Jary with
stating that which they would hear from the witnesses, but
he wand mike this observation, that the evidence of the persons
he should call would be quite consistent with that which they had
obtained by ocular proof. The consequences of their verdict, if
given against the detendant, would be very serious, as the engine
must necessarily be removed altogether, because there was no
other means of constructing it. it being one of the most complete
machines of the kind that could be made. He should now call his
witnesses. I
Mr. Benjamin Beasley examined.—l superintended the erection
of the defendant's steam engine. I have seen a great many such
engines, and understand their nature. The defendant's is not quite
of two-horse power. It is placed in the cellar floor, and I never
saw a better piece of engineering in my life. I have been into the
plaintiff's house, and I certainly heard a small noise proceed from
the engine while at work. I should describe the noise as bring
like the ticking of a church clock ; it is to be heard now, and it
never varies. I put my face, and then my hand, against the
plaintiff's wall, and there certainly was not any vibration at that
time, although the engine was in full work. The engine makes
more noise than an ordinary printing press, because it does six
times the work, but does not make more noise than six presses would
do, if at work together. I was at the defendant's when four of the
gentlettien of the Jury attended to see the engine. The engine was
then in full work. lam quite confident of that. When the Jury
I were in the plaintiff's house I was in the defendant's, and the engine
never ceased working. There is a patent smoke consumer to it. I
have seen the smoke issue from the chimney at the time of fresh
coals being put on, and the smoke certainly did not exceed that
which would be caused by an ordinary parlour lire.
Cross-examined by Mr. °nat.:Cr.—My own steam engine is of
ranch greater power than the defendant's. The defendant has two
presets ; the one pulls off 1,200 papers In an hour, and the other
about 1,800. The engine could be made to wotk faster, but it
would not be advisable to do it. I was never at the plaintiff's house
at night.
Re-examined.—The engine is several feet from the wall. When
1 was present I never observed any vibration.
By the Loan CHIEF' JUSTICE—One of the old.fashiened
presses would work off about 400 papers in an hour.
11" m. Harrison, builder, examined.-1 did the wood-work about
the defendant's machine. The ritaing-press was fifteen feet from
the wall of the plaintiff's house. The presses were first on the
ground floor, but in consequence of Mr. Rowse complaining, they
were removed down into the under-ground kitchen. The alters.
tion took place in September. The engine was then placed about
two feet from the plaintiff's wall. I have seen it at work, and it
goes as smoothly and as tinkly as possible. I have never felt any
vibration from it, although I have stood -lose to it while it was at
work.

Cross-examined by AIL GURNEY.—The engine made a noise
like the sucker of a pump, and :here was a kind of check upon the
wheels that also made a noise; but it did not produce a vibration.
George Goodyer--Siept at defendant's premises, in the third pair
front room, the wall of which was near the engine, and although
he had been in bed while theengine was at work. yet he had not
been the least inconvenienced by it. He felt no motion at any
time, nor heard any thumping; tint when • cart or carriage went
by in the streets, there was a motion very perceivable. He had
not observed more smoke proceed from the engine than from a
common chimney.
Mr. John Burfoot—Llied at the Panorama on the- west side oT
defendant's premises, and had never experienced the least incon-
venience, or heard any noise from the working of the steam engine.
Mr. John Lloyd examined—l trade this engine ; it is of two
horse power. I have seen it lit work. I was there at the time the
Gentlemen of the Jury viewed it, and was attending the engine.
It was in full power, and both presses were in motion ; they had no
paper in them, which caused them to make ra her more noise than
when printing. The engine, if it were going near this Court now
would make such a kind of noise that his Lordship would not re-
quire it to be stopped, as he would be able to hesr as well while it
was going as now. There was only the auctidn of the engine to be
heard. I should think that the working of the steam engine could
not possibly produce a vibration of the glasses on the plaintiff",
table, but such a circumstauce might happen from the passing of a
coach or a cart in the street. Perhaps it would be better to say to
the Gentlemen of the Jury, that as to the stno!:e, supposing the
engine not to consume a particle of its own smoke, yet two bushels
and a half of coal would work it for ten hours; but it did in fact
consume its own smoke. _

Mr. (I R !MY replied, and contended that the evidence on the
part of the plaintiff had not been in the least shaken by that offerml
en the part of the defendant. The Learned Counsel then com-
mented on the testunony of the defendant's witnesses, and eon-
eluded by confidently hoping that he had shown the plaintiff' to be
clearly entitled to a verdict.
T$lS LORD CHIEF JUSTICE& 41191:1HIHIIII op, observed, that
the law gave every man a tight toeM)ny his own rouerty in what
way he pleaaed, so that he did not do it to the detriment cf other.. If
the Jury believed that the plaintiff' had sustained en injury from
the working of the defendant's machinery, then he would be en.
titled to their verdict.
The Jury having consulted about ten minutes, returned a verdict
foe the plaintiff—Damages 60L

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MONDAY, MAY SO.
PASMORE V. RICAARD3ON.

This was an aetino brought by the plaintiff, an attorney, to re.
cover from the defendant the amount of his bill of costs, for certain
actions against divers persons. The defendant was the agent of the
celebrated Ste Gregor M'Gregor, and was also deeply interested in
the Poyais Bonds.
• Mr. Sergeant TARDY conducted the plaintiff's cue, and called
Ilse remand clerk of the plaintiffto prove the ease, as also Mr. Hei-
man Hendricks.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN was far the defendant. lie com-
menced his address to the Jury by observing that his client was in
a mess. He bad no wish to recede from any fair claim that the
plaintiff had upon him, and a claim he certainly had, and for which
they had paid the sum of 801. lute Court, but that the thtintif had
a ttencral claim for the business dose for Sir Gregor El'Oregor he
denied. Sir Gregor was personally liable, and him only. The
Jury would see the fearful odds they had against them ; they had
attorney, attorney's son, and attorney's clerks, against them, by
whom the case was bolstered up.
remarks,
tyles said, if the Learned tieetreant could give
.....ntradiet the witnesses, it was well; but sakes he
, the Jury must, from the evidence given, vetum a ear.
plaintiff, unless they thought the witnesses all perjured.
to be be:ieved that an attorney would trust a foreigner,
• his honours, in the manner that it was endem.
', sod who was bet iewedueid so hien in the
plaintiff 4191. subject to the taxation of the Pro-

were grouting.
Crosattuunined by Mr. BROUGHAM—Witness had slept in the After soma further
name room since No; bast, and the noise eras as great u ever, Tho Cuter Jost
but be continued to Glee]) guke as'sound as ever. any evidence to con tri
Mr. Bacrusuars--usid Tau ever hear that dreardeote seise -s Guild do en. Ms Jury
did for the plaintiff', i
Witsoms-1 have Mind a dnuellisif noise.
It was not to be bilk
Mr. Bouturant—A drunriging noise, I ask p
Wilnesa--I don't boboorthe meaning of it whatever might be h
.
routed to
Mr. Baouckaeat--tio, nor I wither. (A WO Did you,n„t p,i„represent,n.
ever beer dot timber coasbes pies in-the meat ebonies "nom
hod p Verdict for the plai
Whams—Whoa I bore been awake, Sir. LA lanes.) Monetary.