The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat in his court in the Old Hall,
Lincoln's inn, and heard appeals to-day.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE CORPORATION CP
LONDON—PROPERTY IN THE SOIL AND BED OF THE
RIVER THAMES.
This case came before his Lordship upon appeal from
the judgment of the Master of the Rolls, overruling ex-
ceptions taken by the Corporation of London to the
Master's report, finding that the defendants were bound
to make a discovery of their alleged title to the banks of
the river names, and ordering an inspection of their
Charters and papers. The information was filed in the
Year 1844 by her Majesty's then Attorney-General
against the Mayor and Commonalty of the City of
London, the town clerk, and William Cubitt, Sic Tho-
InAe 'radon, J. 0. Hanson' W. G. Prescott, Sir
Courtenay Boyle, J. P. Reich, and J. Cornelius Park,
the last seven as lessees ef portions of the soil and bed
of the Thames, under leases granted by the Corporation
of London, whereupon they had erected wharfs and
embankments, which were stated to be common
nuisances and obstructions to the navigation of her
Majesty's subjects, and to the low of the
river. The information stated that by the royal
prerogative the ground and soil of the coasts and shores
of the seas, creeks, and navigable rivers in the kingdom,
and about it, belonged of right to the Crown; that the
river is the King's highway for all subjects; that by pre-
scription or some grant the corporation had exercised
the office of bailiff or conservator, whose duty it was to
see to the navigation aid prevent obstructions or nui-
Bermes in the river, and to regulate the fishing thereof ;
that the corporation thereby acquired no right, or estate,
or interest in the ground and soil of the bed or shores of
the river between high and low water mark ; that the
corporation had, notwithstanding, of late claimed, in
addition to the exercise of the right of bailiff, or con-
servator to be seized or entitled to the freehold of the
ground, bed, and soil of the river and of the shores be-
tween high and low water mark, within the limits of the
conservancy of the Thames, assumed the exercise of
acts of ownership over it, and had made grants of it to
persons having land or wharfs on the banks adjacent
thereon, to embank it, and build ou such soil and bed of
the river between high and low water mark, at different
places -on the river—namely, at the Isle of Dogs, at Dur-
rand's Wharf, Rotherhithe, and at Battersea Marsh ;
that embankments and buildings were, in consequence of
these leases, built or building, which would be a common
nuisance and prevent the free flow of the river. The
information charged the corporation with having re-
, "bred a considerable sum of money in the way of fines
and rents from such lessees; but refuted to give the
Crown any account thereof, and the lessees set up a pre-
tended claim of right to execute such embankments.
The information further charged that no charter or
letters patent by any of her Majesty's predecessors,
Kings or Queens, had contained any grant of the soil or
bed or shores of the Thames, and charged that the cor-
poration ought to discover and set forth under and by
what charter or letters patent they claimed such freehold
in the soil or bed of the river. The Attorney-General
denied
any immemorial right in this respect as alleged
by the corpbration, or that the corporation possessed the
freehold under a charter of Henry IV., in the 23d year
of his reign, which had no force to pass such freehold;
that such charter had been also revoked or annulled;
and the information also charged that no sufficient acts
• of ownership by the corporation could be shown to
e!d"noe an immemorial usage of the right claimed by
the corporation—that the corporation had no right to
exact or accept money as fines or rents for permission
thus
to build. It was also asserted by the information,
that the defendants had in their custody, possession, or
power books, accounts, deeds, instruments, charters,
otters patent, leases, maps, plans, and papers, by which
the truth of the several matters would, if produced,
appear; that the town clerk was cognizant of them, and
without their production the Attorney- General could not
have a lull discovery on oath, and that therefore he had
made the town clerk a party to the suit. The Attorney-
ventral prayed that the rights of the Crown and those
that
the Corporation might be ascertained and declared;
Cubitt and the other lessees be restrained
,_
perp•-tusl injuction in respect to works in progr..ss
from carrying ith,an on, and that embankments formed
Should be restored to theirfortn,r and ancient condition,
and
that an account should be taken by this Court of
the fines,
rents, expenses, and profits arising from
granting such licences to embank, received by the
mayor.o 1 and corporation, and the amount be (It-erect]
paid to her M. sty, after deductihg jjustallow
s
; and the rigiit to trw trechtAci be &creed and
established in and to her Majesty. • the Corporation of Loudon T o
this
information
answer
udon put in a -demurrer to part,
and a_
u to the residue, in which they denied that