The Sun.
London, England, 1862-01-13 00:00:00

THE NEW METROPOLITAN RAILWAY

Within the last few days a series of claims for
compensation, amounting in the aggregate to a large
sum of money, for alleged injuries done to the ad-
jacent property here and there, especially in the
New-road by the construction of the Metropolitan
or Underground Railway, have been heard and
decided in the Sheriffs' Court before Mr. Sergeant
Hayes, acting as assessor, and a special jury, with
the aid of counsel on both sides. One of these
claims, to the amount of nearly £5OO, was raised
by Mr. Horrocks, the proprietor of the Queen's
Arms publichouse, Euston-road. Mr. Francis was
principal counsel for the claimant, and Mr. J. H.
Lloyd for the respondents, who were the railway
company. The house in question is situated at the
corner of Skinner-street, Euston-road, and origi-
nally stood back from the road about 50 feet,
with a forecourt in front. In 1859 the claimant,
on taking possession of the premises, excavated the
forecourt for cellarage purposes, and constructed
overhead, on what was the forecourt,a new building
for carrying on his business. This new structure
covered the whole of the forecourt, and was con-
nected with the front of the old house by means of
what is called in masonry a straight joint. In May,
1861, a landslip took place to the westward of.
Skinner-street, by which the main of the New
River Company was broken and some damage done
to the houses in the vicinity. It was alleged on
behalf of the claimant that in consequence of
that slip the forecourt of his premises subsided,
causing a separation between the new building and
the old, a large fissure appearing at the point of
junction. In July last the cellars of Mr. Horrocks
became flooded with water, which was also attri-
buted to the slip. Fearing the water would sap the
foundations of the house, he shut up his premises for
a time, for the purpose of having the foundations
strengthened and repaired, which was subsequently
done, and he asked of the company compensation for
damage alleged to have been occasioned by their
works, and to be reimbursed the sum expended in
the repairs. His claim amounted to £489 6s. 10d.,
including £340 lls. 6d. for loss of trade, and for
rent and taxes for 13 weeks, during which the house
was stated to have been shut up. The architect
and surveyor to the claimant, the builder, and the
claimant himself were examined. On the part of
the company Mr. Lloyd, their counsel, contended
that the separation between the old and the new
houses was caused by the new building shrinking
from the old, the new being merely attached t 3 the
old one by a straight joint and not " bonded" into
it. He also argued that the water in the claimant's
cellars could not have been the result of the slip,
linasmuch as the railway cutting in the Euston-road
was up wards of 36ft. below the surface of the road,
while the slip occurred in May, and the flooding of
the cellars was not discovered ttntil July. He further
contended, iu point of law, that even if the damage
had been occasioned by the company's works, the
building injured not being 20 years old, the pro-
prietor was not entitled to the support of the ad-
joining soil, which by their Act was vested in the
company. A novel point was also raised by the
learned counsel, to the effect that by the 7th George
IV., cap. 142, it was enacted that any building
erected on new foundations on a forecourt, and
within 50 yards from the side of the New-road,
shopld be deemed a common nuisance, and he there-
fore argued that, supposing the company might be
liable to compensate the claimant for the subsidence
of the land itself, if such would have taken place
had the new building not been erected en the fore-
court, he could have no right to compensation in
respect to a building declared by an Act of the Legi-
slature to be a common nuisance. The jury, having
inspected the premises, returned a verdict to the
effect that, if there had been n) building upon the
forecourt the ground would not have sunk; that
the building was erected on new foundations, and.
consequently, came under the designation of the
statute ofrGeorge IV. ; and that the premises of the
complainant had not been injuriously affected within
the meaning of the Lands Clauses Consolidation
Act.

A
cablefcroommpsatn. yDahvaids be ,
opening direct telegraphic communication between London
BrieenadbtorrileWed xft:rd, lay
for a
thesup bu rarpaorsieenof
and Queenstown. The Electric and International Telegraph
Company are to construct at their expense all the necessary
land lines, and Messrs. Glass, Elliot, and Co. have entered
into a contract with the company to lay the submarine por-
tinu, and haveundertaken to guarantee its efficiency for 11
years, the whole to be completed in two months. This
undertaking, however, appears to be scarcely necessary,
'since a company hat already been advertised, which, from
a concession of land that has been granted to it, seems
likely to command a priority of communication with vEssels
approaching the shore.