The Sun.
London, England, 1855-04-09 00:00:00

fiv-r.ati-bEY&E.

170ME-CIRCIIIT.—KwastaY, APRIL 7.

THE QlliiN' V." .HA§tEWOOTY `AND.' OTHERSk-t-THE NEW
r 'grESM.BOAT PIER AT. LONDON;
This was an indictment preferred by Mr. Penning, the
:prgrietcor of the nixtensiVe preinises known as Penning's
Whasf, 'rOnCIOn-bifOgte,""'h,l,raiii-st • Mr.rzila'slevkiod, the
chair of `tlo3/rati-tileatagboat teoinplnfl - Bur-
.ney,3he, so/printvident oftbe Citizen Steam-boat Com-
pa3iy; ana two laUurefi `named ''all and Boyle, for
having created 'nuisance and • obstriiation on o:upriver
Thames.

Thedefendants placed upon the record a plea of "Not
guilty."

Mi. E. James; Q.C., Mr: Bramwell, Q.C., and Mr.
Were counsel tor the prbliectition ; Mr. M. Cham-
bers, Q.C., Mr. Ballaatipe, and Mr. Bevil!, were for the
.defendepts. ,

This peeeecution arose out of, the erection of a pier
`tinder the 'first'areh of tondon-bridge, On • the east side,
by the defendants, for the use of the passengers by their
beate; and,yehich the prosecueeralleged not only inter-
fered with him in his businesSas a wl2rfinger, but that
by its.encroaehing upon the waterway-of the river was
also an obstruction and .inconvenience to the 'public Who
had occasion .to navigate.it. ~ It. will
,he repollected that
there is already one pier on the, upper side of the arch,
but in order to obviate the inconvenience anifdatiger to
Persorice who'had to cress the crowded thoroughfare for
the purpose of going to' the railway itation, it appears
that the ditecters of the two companieiabdve Mentioned
had caused title Tier in question to be e'r'ected, thus
ena-
biing passengers to come up the steo of the bridge'dn
the east Ode, without crowing the road. 'A good deal
of opposition, it will be retheinbered, was manifested by
the wharfingers and others in the vicinity when the pier
was erected, and the City authorities-were applied th"for
their Sanotion, conservators of 'the fiver, to its being
allowed ito'remain. It appears, however, that no satiri-
faetory,ceticlnsioe was come to, and in the result the
preeent prosecution was instituted, with a view to try
the question of the le4ility &the pier.
Mr. Ames- Opened the "case' briefly t6the jury, and
having explained to them the nature of,the inquiry, he
said it appeared to him that the question to be disposed
of- was really one 'of law, and, that, in the end, it would
be for his lordship to say whether the erection of
this pier,- under one of the arches of London-bridge,
close to numerous wharves, and where there was such
enormous traffie,3wasmot a nuisance and obstruCtion to
the public, and, on that ought to be removed.
He said-he really 'did- not belie4e, that: there 'was any
substan'tial answer' to the indictment, and that his
learned friend merely by making an eloquent speech,
and detailing the advantages which he suppOied to be
derived by the. public from the erection of the pier in
question, would, endeavour-to induce the jury to give a
verdict for the defendants'. -Hs treed not, however, he
said, remind the jury that the law' would not sanction
any proceeding which tended to sacr:fice the general
convenience and rights of the pabliefor the accommoda-
tion of oae pprtion of it, and therefore if it was shown
to their satisfaction thatthis pier really did Obstruct the
river highway; it would be their •duty. to say that the
defendants were guilty, . . , •
Severatwitnesses, principally watermen and lighter-
men, were then examined, and their evidence went to
show that the pier obstructed the landing plate or 'steps,
at the bridge,"and that it rendered-it very difficult for
wherries to land their passengers- at them. One of the
witnesses stated. that while rowing a gentleman and a
sick youth who were
, going to the railway, to the stairs,
his boat was nearly upset by getting foul of the quarter,
of the dummy of the pier. It appeared, however, on
cross-examination, that the danger was created by the
gentlemAn -pueliin,g his umbrella against the dummy,:
and the force of the tide drew him over upoa the seat)
and so caused the boat to be nearly capsized. it ap-,
peared from the testimony of all the witnesses that when
it was flood- the tide ran very strong at this'spot, and
inshore, and in consequence of the pier diminishing the
channel or waterway, it was with considerable difficulty
that a barge could be brought up, as it is technically,
termed, at the prosecutor's wharf,

When the Case had proceeded some length, upon an!
intimation given, by the court, the learned counsel on
both sides conferred together, and after a good deal of
discussion among themselves it was announced by his
lordship, That all parties had agreed that the further
hearing of the case should stand over to the 24th April ;
an intimation at the same. time being given that there
was a probability that in the meantime some arrange-
ment would be made that, would obviate the necessity of
any further proceedings; ••-