The Sun.
London, England, 1855-04-25 00:00:00

THE SOUTHESE PEERAGE.

This pis a petition of Sir James Carnegie, of Southesk,
Kinnaird, ar.d Pittarrow, Ilarnet, claiming the tlties of
Earl of Southesk and Baron Carnegie, of liinliaird and
Lmehars, who claims in succession to JaH;es, rift,. Earl
of Southesk, who was attainted and his tit'e forfeited, in
consequence of his having taken part in the rebellion of
1715 on behalf of the Pretender. The claimant is the
lineal descendant and heir male of David, the first Earl
of Southesk, who wa, created by patent Baron Carnegie
in 1616, and raised to the earldom in 1630. The case
has been several times before the house, and evidence of
lineage produced. The whole of the proofs of the pedi-
gree were now completed.

Their LorAhips dk,cided that the claim was made out,
so far as the pedigree was c-n,!erued ; but they held that
the attainder way a b.,r t tho succession, that d,ctrine
having been laid ,town and acted on in the case of the
Earldom of Pertb. '

EXCREQUER CHAMBER

TBIt CHARING•CROSS BRIDGE COILIPANY V. MITCHELL.-

LIABILITY TO TAXES,

This was a. writ of error from the judgment of the
Guart of Queen's Bench, which had given its deci.fion in
favour of the defendant. The plaintiffs sued in respect
of a distre=s that had been levied, and an order was made
by Mr. Justice Coleridge that a question at law should
be raised as to whether the tAls of the bridge were liable
to be a•sessed to the land tax. From the case it appeared
that the defendant was the 'collector of the laid tax, and
bad levied a distress for six years' arrears of laud tax,
amounting to 365/.' on the tolls of the plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs submitted that they were not liable to th.i land
tax, as the 'ground upon which the bridge was con-
structed had been redeemed from that tax.

Mr. Bramwell supported the case on behalf of the
plaintiffs. . .

Sir F. Thesiger represented the defendant, but was
not heard.

The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of
Queen's Bench.
Judgment affirmed.

COURT HOUSE, NEWINGTON.
THE QUEEN V. HAZELWOOD AND OTHERS.

This indictment against the defendant, Mr. Hazel?
wood, the chairman of the Iron Steam Boat Company,
and the superintendent of the Citizen Steam Boat Com-
pany, and one of the servants of the latter company, for
misdemeanour, in having erected a steam-boat pier
under the first arch of London-bridge, and thereby, as
was alleged, impeded the free navigation of the river,
was again proceeded with yesterday before Mr. Baron
Platt and a special jury.
It will be remembered that the matter was partially
inquired into at Kingston a fortnight ago, and upon
a representation that there was a probability that
some amicable arrangement might be wade between
the parties the case was adjourned until to-day. at
appears that some negotiations have since taken place
with a View to obviate the necessity of any further
proceedings, but they failed in effecting the object, aod
the case for the prosecution was now proceeded with.
Mr. E. James, Q.C., and Mr. Lush appeared for the
prosecution ; Mr. M. Chambers, Q.O Mr. Ballantine,
and Mr. Bo.vill were counsel for the defendants.

Upon the former occasion it appeared that the prose-
cution was instituted by Mr. Fenning, the proprietor of
Fenning's-wharf, and it was alleged that not only
was the business of his establishment impeded by the
erection of the pier in, questi,n, but that in consequence
of its being placed there the water-way of the river
was interfered with, and wherries were prevented
from setting down passengers at the stairs ; and that
owing to the tide setting very strongly under this
arch, when it was at flood, it was impossible to avoid
getting foul of the dummy which formed 'the pier,
and that serious accidents bad nearly, taken place upon
several occasions_ To day evidence of a similar character
was adduced, and several watermen, and other p-.rs,mir
connected with river pursuits, were called to sho iv that
the pier was an obstruction to the river highway.
Mr. Fanning, the proprietor of Fenning's-wharf, was
examined, and he stated that property to the ainutait of.
a million and a half per annum was landed there, and
also that the pier was a great obstruction to vessel-, and
that it frequently happened tluit barges, by the force of
the title, were swu,ng athwart the dummy, and it -vas
necessary to enip)y ten or twelve men with the crane to
remove them. He said that he pail 1.6001. a year rent
for the wharf, and the erection of the pier had occa-ianed
him a great deal of additional expense. He also proved
that on two former occasions a similar pier had been
erected, and the City authorities ordered them to be im-
mediately removed, and once the whole of the pier was
forcibly towed away, by a steamer, by the orders of the
harbour master.

Sir John Rennie, the architect of the bridge, was also
examine 1, and he state,; that the erection cost neArly a
million of money, an he said it was a great object both
for sanitary purposes; and also on account of the gr.-at
traffic up'in the river, to h;Lve the arches as wide as po--
sible, and to give as much water way as could be
tained, and he expressed his opinion that the pier in
question was a decided obstruction to the navigation of
the river.

Mr. Chambers, at the clone of the case for the prose-
cution, made an able address to the jury on behalf of the
defendants, and he [urged that the evidence rather went
to support the supposition that Mr. Fenning had sus-
tained some private injury by the erection of this pier
than that it was any real obstruction to th.e public navi-
gation of the rivet, and he called a number of witnesses
—among whom was 31r. Saunders, the water-bailiff—all
of whom said that in their opinion he pier did not in-
terfere with the navigation of the river, and some of
them went on to say, that in their opinion the pier was
rather an advantage than otherwise to those who wished
to go to the different wharves in the neighbourhood.
Mr. Baron Platt went over the whole of the evidence
with a good deal of minuteness, and the jury, alter deli
berating for nearly an hour, returned a vrrdict of guilty.
Tee effect of this verdict, if it should stand, will be
that the pier in question must be removed.