The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-31 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.-MAIDSTONE, 30,
CIVIL SIDE.

(Before Mr. Baron Martin and Special Juries.)
CATOR V. THE LEWISHAM BOARD OF WORKS.
This was an action of trespass against the de-
fendants for having polluted a stream by causing
sewage matter to flow into it. The defendant'
pleaded several pleas, and among them one that
what they had done was done in accordance with
the powers granted them by an act of Parliament.
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Murphy
were for the plaintiff; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. J.
Browne, and Mr. Raymond were for defendants.
The plaintiff in this action is the owner of a good
deal of property at Penge, and it was alleged that
the defendants in the operations they had carried
out under the Metropolitan Local Management Act
had drained the Lewisham district, and caused a
large quantity of offensive matter to be carried to
the vicinity of plaintiffs property, thereby doing
considerable injury by polluting the water of a
stream that was used by hisstenants, and in other
ways.
Mr. Hawkins, on the part of the defendants, said
he did not dispute the facts, and the only question
was what should be done.
It was ultimately arranged that the matter should
be made a special case for the opinion of the Court.
wILLEn (ADMINISTRATRIX) V. THE SOUTH-EASTERN
RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action brought by a widow, as admi-
nistratrix of her deceased husband, to recover com-
pensation from the defendants, who were alleged to
have occasioned his death by their negligence.
Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Denman, Q.C., were
counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Shee and
Mr. J.Browne appeared for the company.
This action arose out of an accident that occurred
in March last upon the North Kent Railway,
between Higham and Gravesend, when, it will be
remembered, the train ran off the line and several
passengers were seriously injured, and the deceased,
who was head guard, was killed.
It was arranged, without any of the facts being
gone into, that the defendants should agree to a
verdict for £5OO, to be apportioned in the following
manner—.£2so to the widow and £5O to each of five
children, subject to the opinion of the Court above
as to the point whether the defendants were liable,
having regard to the position of the deceased.

LORD NORBURY V. KITCHIN.
This was an action for trespass, it being alleged
on the part of the plaintiff that the defendant had
improperly taken away a quantity of water from a
water •course passing through his property.
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr.
Honeyman were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Ser-
geant Shee, Mr. Matthews, and Mr. Murphy were
for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this action occupies an estate at
Westerham, called the Park-hill Estate, and the de-
fendant is the owner of property adjoining, called
the Dunsdale Estate, a water-course or small stream
Passing through both properties. The defendant,
it appeared, had caused certain machinery to be
erected for the purpose of conveying the water from
this stream into his own property ; and it was con-
tended on the part of the plaintiff that he was not
justified in so doing, and hence the present action,
Several witnesses were examined on the part of the
plaintiff with a view to show that he had taken a
larger quantity of water than he was entitled to
form the stream in question, and that he had not
only used this water for domestic and other pur-
poses, which he was justified in doing, but that he
had also made use of the water to supply an orna-
mental pond, which it was contended, on behalf of
the plaintiff, according to the legal decisions that
had taken place upon the point, he had no right
to do.
Mr. Sergeant Shee, in his address to the jury for
the defendant, said that the whole proceeding had
arieen in consequence of the plaintiff, probably from
some misrepresentation that had been made to him,
-not being on friendly terms with his neighbour,
Mr. Kitchin ; but he said he should be able to
show that the latter had used no more of the water
from the stream than he had a legal right to, and
that the quantity so taken was, in point of fact,
almost inappreciable, and not more than one-fiftieth
part of the supply. He called a number of wit-
nesses with a view to make out this case.
_ _

_ •.
Mr. Baron Martin summed up very briefly, and
said that the only question the jury had to decide
was whether the defendant had used an unreason-
able quantity of the water or not.
The Jury retired to consider their verdict, and
in about half an hour they returned into court, and
found for the defendant.