The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-17 00:00:00

V/

COURT OF ALDERMEN.

Yesterday a Court was held for the despatch of
business.

JOSEPH ADY.

Alderman COPELAND presented a petition from that
very public character, Joseph My, who stated himself
to be a Liveryman of the Bow-string Makers' Com-
pany. The petition represented that Ady had about
twenty-five years ago engaged in compiling a work which
he valued at upwards of 1,0001., and which contained
a great variety of intelligence on the subject of un•
claimed dividends, profitable to the community, and
productive of a certain revenue to himself ; that he
had been tried and convicted at the Old Bailey, and
sentenced to transportation for seven years, which sen-
tence was commuted to imprisonment for twelve months;
that he placed the work alluded to, consisting of books
and papers, in the hands- of Mr. Tyars, now Mr.
Deputy Tyars, to whom he had since applied for the
restoration of them, but from whom he had met with
the most indignant refusal ; that he was prevented in
his advanced age from supporting himself, and gaining for
the public hundreds of pounds in consequence of such
refusal ; and that he prayed. the Court to interfere in
such a manner as to cause the restitution of his pro-
perty.
The LORD MAYOR thought it necessary to state to
the Court that Mr. Ady had applied to him, and that
he had spoken to his deputy, Mr. Tyars, on the subject.
Mr. Tyars appeared to he justified in the course he bad
alopted in the case. That gentleman stated that the
commutation of the sentence had been made on the
condition that the books and papers should never be
used again to the injury and vexation of the public.
Alderman COPELAND said that he was under no
great compliment to the petitioner, who, when he was
Mayor, had the assurance to refer to hi:n, as well as to
other Aldermen, as willing to be responsible for his in-
tegrity to the amount of 1,000/.—(A laugh.) He (Al-
derman Copeland) however, was one of those who could
not set down a man as doomed to he a perpetual of-
fender because he was condemned by the law upon
one occasion. He thought it possible for a man to re-
pent and mend his ways, and he considered it no more
that common humanity to aid any effort of the kind.
—(Hear, bear.) He was the more strongly induced
to present the petition, as he had every reason to sup
pose that the petitioner bad procured for rightful
chirnants several sums of money, particularly sums of
money connected with bankrupt est Ito., a subject on
which the Court knew it was extremely difficult to ac-
quire any information at all.—(Hear, hear.) He should
move that the petition be referred to the Petition Com•
rnitter.

Sir PETER LAURIE most decidedly opposed the
motion. The petitioner, he said, was, according to
letters fro.n Scotland and other parts, pursuing his el I
course, and the acquiescence of the Court would be an
encouragement to him to proceed. For the Court of
Aldermen, of all bodies, to take up such a subject,
!truck him as extremely preposterous.—(llear.)
The petition was then ordered to lie on the table.
PUBLIC-HOUSES IN THE CITY.

A conversation took place amongst the Aldermen
relative to the conduct of publicans in the City in vio-
lating the Police Act, and they came to an unanimous
understanding that the licenses of those houses which
were complained against on the list licensing day should
he stopped next year if any further complaint of trans-
gression should be established against them. The
members admitted that it was a most serious thing to
take away a license, but they determined that ex-
amples should Le made. The Ward of llishopsgatc
was most particularly cautioned, and Alderman Cope-
lind said tat he should convey the caution, with all
expedition, through his deputies.—Adjourned.

COURT OF SEWERS FOR. WEST-
MINSTER AND PART OF MIDDLESEX.

A special Court of Sewers for the City and Liberties
of Weitminster was yesterday held at the office of the
Commissioners, Greek-street, Soho, to tike into con-
sitleration the drainage of the 'West of London and
Westminster Cemetery, F. L. Donaldson, Esq., in the
chair.

Mr. 13ouvEntE said it would be desirable to see bow
far the Company and the Commissioners aAteed to con-
sider those points as settled. Thus he considered that
it %I-3S proved that the Counters' Creek was the easement
provided by trattre for the draining of the water from
the land now in possession of the West of London and
Westminster CometTy Company, and he would move
a resolution to that effect.
Mr. GUNTER seconded the resolution.
A COMMISSIONER stated his opinion that the- Cour.-
tnrs' Creek was originally a ditch which had been taken
from its owner.

The motion was then put and carried.
Mr. LESLIE, on Mr. Bouverie being about to pro•
pose another resolution, objected to this mode of pro-
ceeding ; they had already affirmed that of which they
bad no proof ; I.e did nut think is was the natural
drainage. Toe course adopted to tic up the lands of
the Court by a series of distinct propositions was a most
aintirable one certainly, hut the Court shoul I be on its
guard aga.,nst being completely precluded from discuss-
lug the whole question.
Tile discussion, alter proceeding for some time, was
stopped by
The CIIAIIIMAN on the ground of irregularity. He
thought Mr. Bouverie had bitt:r proceed with his
statement.

Mr. BOUVERIE then proceeded with his statsment.
In 1824 the Kensington Canal Act was passed. The
bank in the neighbourhood of the land in question
was erected, which was an interruption to the natural
drainage, and the Act made it incumbent on the Com-
pany to provide proper drainage for the adjoining lands.
In 1828 they applied to this Court for liberty to lay
pipes through this bank. There was a clause at the
end of the Act reserving the power of the Commis-
sioners of Sewers, but it could hardly be contended that
clause annulled the effect of the preceding clauses, pro-
tecting the rights of the landowners, and providing a
remedy for evils inflicted by the Act itself. It had been
contended that the pipes had been introduced for the re-
lief of the bank itself, and not for the adjoining land ;
now there was no proof of this, and the probability was
that the application was made at the instance of the
landowner. The Court gave leave without hesitation,
and the minute stated on the face of it that the pipes
were for the conveyance of the land water into the
sewer or canal. He did not know how far the Court
would contend that they had a right to stop a natural
drainage, hut he would submit that the right of ease-
ment was not abridged by the 47 Geo. 3, cap. 7, nor
by the Kensington Canal Act. He now came to the
point at issue, and he was nest aware that it was neces-
sary to come to the Court for leave to build drains on
his own land, and he thought it was perfectly natural
that tie Commissioners should not know they were
doing wrong. In October 1839, the Commissioners
directed the pipes to be cut off, on the ground that
they had been appropriated to purposes for which they
had not been originally intended. Now, he thought
that was a har! case. It was impossible the pipes
could be appropriated to any use for which they were
not intended, as it was impossible that any but land
water could be carried off. The further proceedings,
however, in the order were suspended until a'aout
March 1840, when all drainage was stopped, and on
the 20th of that month the Court came to the resolu-
tion to suspend further operations on the order, until
a survey should have taken place. In consequence the
plugs were taken out, and the drainage continued with-
out interruption until July. In the meantime the
Cemetery Company had renew ed their application to
have this drainage at a lower level. The order made to
cut off the drains was directly in teeth of the
practice of the Court, in cases of old sewers.
Now, as the lands of the Company had no frontage to
the canal, which, although not a covered sewer, was
yet a sewer, they hail a clear and undoubted right of
drainage into it, and could not be called upon to build
a sewer. The I:nd could never be built upon, and
therefore it would be but fair to the Company to allow
the same drainage in the land, which was allowed when
it was occupied as garden grounds. It was evident
from the report of the surveyor, that the public could
not be damnified by granting the request of the Com-
pany. It appeared, moreover, from the report of the
surveyor, that if the Company were compelled to build
thene Compan
a Company's a sewer, the land could net be effectually drained by it,
string
r e s Theolu
-
and that the only effectual way of so doing was by
grantingtheprayer of the
th
proposed
resolu-
tions,
na: embodying Commissioner the principal topics of his speech.
Mt. LESLIE rose to order. He
thought that notice
ought to have been given of these motions, anddoubted
whether 11, if it would facilitate the p
they could be put without notice.
Mr. B
„,OUVERIE, IVOtU
the Gout (withdraw the merely affirinatirvoe"
I that the prayer of the pe-
titionbe granted,
if the Kensington
of the CoallrinY
creeseodliuntgiosnosf; and move strnP Y
Caul Company consent.
' d all the land corn.
Ken-
sington Canal Company purchased
a I portion. The
M,. J. \VsIITE seconded the reselution. The Ken-
Tt'arouali tae bank,
posing the present see ers, except a s
application for permission to lay pipes
tla-
was made merely to save the bank it
-t lie athn'tted the Cemetery Company 1 d
water-
to drain their land into a neighbooring
t:eat
elt fro; bein..iga
course ; but it hail always been a question to
thesc matters as a sort of arb'tration. The Court soot
do this, and we will permit you to do that ; and, as a
general rule, it was a most beneficial one ; but, in this
instance, where only a small strip of ground interfered,
he thought it would be hard tr refuse the Cemetery
Company to drain through that strip, if they could pro-
cure the consent of the Canal Company. He did cot
believe the Commissioners could stop drains, unless
they were improperly constructed : the proper way of
punishing parties for draining without leave, was to in-
flict a fine. He seconded the resolution, although he
(lid not agree in all the positions laid down by the Hon.
Mover.

Sir GEo. FARRANT said that every day's experience
showed that consecrated burial-grounds might be con-
verLd to builair,g purpose,,. The land in the neigh-
bourhood might become building ground, and then a