The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-14 00:00:00

ROME ClRCUlT.—Maidstone, March 12.

CIVIL SlDE—(Before Lord Chief Justice DENMAN and a
Special Jury.)
TIIE QUEEN V. WATKINS 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 Slice, 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
en 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 tbe prosecution was instituted by Mr. Sutton
and Sir Richard Dobson, two of the principal proprietors or
directors 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 A hich 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 SHEE, on behalf of the defendants, made a
very able address to the jury, and urged with considerable
force that the object 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 increase their own profits. The
watermen had, by the change that had taken place in
the traffic upon the river, and the introduction of steam-
boats, been deprived of their original means of livelihood, and
they had been compelled in consequence to resort to the esta-
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 nuisance 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 pas-
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
been 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 had hitherto
been expended in litigation.
Mr. Sergeant CIIANNELL, in replying to the evidence ad-
duced on behalf of the defendants, urged upon the jury that
they had nothing whatever to do with the question whether
or not this pier was to a certain extent an accommodation to
the public, but whether in point of fact it impeded the na-
vigation of the river; and this, according to his view of the
law, was the only point they had to decide.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE then addressed the jury, and
having intimated it to be his opinion that there had 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 Dir. 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 Channell and Mr. Bovell were for the plain-
tiff; Mr. Russell 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 had carried on a respectable business as a
baker at Aylesford in this county. She had brought up a
large family respectably, and Harriet, the unfortunate object
of the present inquiry, was her younest daughter, and at the
period 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 busintss as a
butcher in a shop opposite to the plaintiff's, and the)- 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 Grbombridge, a good looking young woman, was
then called as a witness. She deposed that the plaintiff was
her mother. There were eleven or them in the family, and she
was the youngest daughter, and was now 26 years old. Her
fatAer.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 eealing
with each other. In the autumn of 1844 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 be 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 tbeexpense.
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, 5/. 105.
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 i-nd
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 childs, at the salllC. tune