The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-16 00:00:00

HOME ClRCUlT.—Maidstone, March 12.

CIVIL SlDE—(Before Lord Chief Justice DENMAN and a
Special Jury.)
THE QUEEN V. WATEDTS AND OTHERS.
- -

This was a proceeding arising out of the dispute between
the proprietors of the Greenwich stone pier and the water-
men who have established the opposition floating pier at
that place. The defendants were indicted for a nuisance, in
having erected a pier or jetty in the river Thames, and by
that means prevented its free navigation by the public.
Mr. Sergeant Channel], Mr. Sergeant C. Jones, Mr. Words-
worth, and Mr. Baddeley, conducted the case for the Crown ;
and Mr. Sergeant Shee, with Mr. M. Chambers and Mr.
Peacock, appeared for the defendants.
The case occupied the Court for several hours, and was not
concluded until late in the evening; but as the circumstances
have so frequently been laid before the public, it will be un-
necessary to go into a detail of the evidence that was adduced
an the present occasion. The defendants named in the re-
cord were a portion of the owners of the watermen's or float-
ing pier, and the prosecution was instituted by Mr. Sutton
and Sir Richard Dobson, two of the principal proprietors or
director:; of the stone pier. It was alleged that the floating
erection abutting in front of the river, near Garden-stairs, and
close to the stone pier at Greenwich, and which was used as
a pier by the watermen's steam •boats, was a hindrance to the
free navigation of the river, and prevented, particularly, any
access being had by wherries to Garden-stairs. In support
of this view of the case a number of witnesses were called,
all of whom expressed their opinion that the pier in question
was an obstruction to the river, and hindered the navigation.
It appeared pretty clear, however, that besides the alleged
inconvenience to the public, there was a very strong feeling
on the part of the proprietors of the stone pier that the rival
pier deprived them of a considerable portion of the pier dues
which they would otherwise receive if it were done away with.
Mr. Sergeant Singe, on behalf of the defendants, made a
very able address to the jury, and urged with considerable
force that the objact of the present indictment was not to
abate a nuisance, but that, in point of fact, it was merely a
struggle by the proprietors of the stone pier to get rid of
their rival, and thus ilcreaie their own profits. The
watermen had, by the change that had taken place in
the trailic upon the river, and tht introduction of stvatn-
boats, been deprived of their original means of livelihood, and
they had been compelled ia consequence to resort to the ,:sta-
blishMent of this pier, for landing upon which certain dues
were demanded, upon which alone they depended for sub-
sistence ; but so far from this being any nu:sauce or incon-
venience to the public, he said he should show, by the evi-
dence of a number of witnesses, that it was the greatest pos-
sible accommodation.

A number of witnesses were then called, many of whom
expressed their opinion that the pier was no obstruction to
the navigation of the river, and they considered it a very
great accommodation to be able to land from steam-boats at
the pier at Garden-stairs.
Upon cross- examination, however, it was admitted that
before the establishment of the floating pier, persons were
enabled to land from wherries at the Garden-stairs, that
barges and other craft could get to the adjoining houses and
unload their cargoes, if required, which they were now pre-
vented from doing. One of the witnesses, who had formerly
bees a waterman, but who was now one of the proprietors of
the floating pier, also stated that they received three far-
things from each person who landed at their pier, that their
receipts during the year amounted to between twelve and
fifteen hundred pounds, but the whole amount lard hitherto
been expended in litigation.
_ Sergeant CLAN NELL, in replying to the evidence ad-
duced on behalf of the defendants, urged upon the jury that
they had nothing whatever odovitli-the question whether
or not this pier was to a certain extent an accommodation. to
the putlic, but whether in. o of fact it impeded the na-
vigation of the river; and this, . -
is, according to his view of the
law, was the only point they had to decide.
The LonD CHIEF JUSTICE then addressed the jury, and
having intimated it to be his opinion that
therehad been no
legal defence made out by the defendants,
under his Lord-
ship's direction they returned a verdict for the Crown.
Maidstone, March 13.
In consequence of the pressure of the criminal business
Mr. Sergeant Dowling, both yesterday and to-day, assisted
in disposing of the prisoners, and in consequence of the
valuable aid thus afforded by the Learned Sergeant, the busi-
ness on the Crown side was concluded to-day; and Mr. Baron
Alderson then proceeded to try civil cases.
(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON and a Common Jury.)
GROOMBRIDGE V. GORHAM.
This was an action brought by Elizabeth Groombridge to
recover compensation for the loss of her daughter Harriet, by
reason of her seduction by the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant Channel! and Mr. Bovell were for the plain-
tiff ; air. Russel! Gurney and Mr. Locke for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL, in opening the case to the jury,
said that the plaintiff was a widow, and since the death of
her husband she bad carried on a respectable business as a
baker at Avlestisrd in this county. She had brought up a
large family respectably, and Harriet, the unfortunate object
of the pria=ent inquiry, was her vounest daughter, and at the
periA of the transaction was about twenty-six years of age.
The defendant had previously occupied a cottage belonging
to the plaintiff, and he subsequently set up in business as a
butcher in e shop opposite to the plaintiff's, and they dealt
together, and were on terms of some intimacy, and the result
was, that the plaintiff's daughter was seduced by the de-
fendant. There was not the aggravation in this case, that
the seduction took place under a promise of marriage, but
still there was no doubt that a grievous injury had been in-
flicted by the defendant, and it would be for the jury to say
what damages he ought to pay for his misconduct.
Harriet Groombridge, a good looking young woman, was
then called as a witness. She deposed that the plaintiff was
her mother. There were eleven of them in the family, and she
was the youngest daughter, and was now 26 years old. Her
father died thirteen years ago, and since then her mother
had carried on the business, and she assisted her in it. The
defendant, Ambrose Gorham, was a butcher, and lived oppo-
site to her mother, and they were in the habit of dealing
with each other, Iu the autumn of 18t4 she went to the

shop of the defendant for some meat, and he laid hold of her
and forced her into the parlour, and then committed the act
imputed to him. In the December following she found that
she was in the family way, and on her informing the defen-
dant of the fact, he at first said he knew nothing about it,
but afterwards sent her a letter (produced), in which he ad-
vised her to go away from Aylesford for two or three weeks
before she was brought to bed, and he would pay the expense.
In consequence of this she engaged a lodging at Maidstone,
where she was delivered of a child in June last. The de-
fendant subsequently sent her, at different times, 51. 10s.
Cross-examined—The defendant had never paid any atten-
tion to her, and she had not spoken to him more than three
or four times when this happened. It was between eight end
nine o'clock in the evening
when she went into the defen-
dant's shop. and he laid hold of her directly, and forced her
into the parlour, and acted in the way described. She did
not go to the shop again for a fortnight, and the same thing
then happened again.
Thomas Groombridge, the brother of the last witness,
proved that upon his being informed of what had happened,
he went to the defendant, who told him he was very sorry
for what had happened, as it made it " so very unpleasant"
for both parties.
A letter from the defendant, in which he offered to pay
half- a-crown for the support of the child, at the same time
stating that many people only paid two shillings under simi-
lar circumstances, was then put in and read; and this closed
the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY, in addressing the jury far the de
fendant, characterised the action as a most trumpery and
unnecessary one, observing that if there had been any
seduction in the matter, it was very probable that the de-
fendant himself was the party seduced. As, however, the
present course had been adopted, be could not deny that the
defendant had rendered himself liable, and the verdict must
pass against him, but he trusted that under the circum-
stances the jury would feel that the smallest possible damages
would amply meet the justice of the case.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON having summed up, the jury after
a short deliberation returned a verdict for the plaintift:—
Damages, 301.