The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 3, 1858.

tiffs; Mr. Power and Mr. K. Mills appeared for the de-
fendant. _ _ .

This case, which was commenced on Saturday, was an
action for trespasses to a dummy of the plaintiffs moored in
the river Orwell, opposite Griffin's wharf, in Ipswich. The
defendant pleaded not guilty; denial of the property of the
plaintiffs in the dummy a custom at the quays of the
Orwell in the port of Ipswich for an outside vessel to pass
its goods and passengers over an inside vessel for the pur-
poses of loading and unloading, embarking and disembark-
ing; and facts bringing him within it; that the plaintiffs'
dummy was a public. niiisauce, and that he committed the
trespasses because it hindered him in the exercise of his
right to embark and disembark ; and a similar plea omitting
the averment that the dummy was a public nuisance.
The facts appeared to be as follows : —The plaintiffs, some
four years ago, bought the stock of the Eastern Union Com-
pany, and as part of it the dummy in question, and certain
steamboats plying between Ipswich and Harwich, for conve-
nience in landing from which the dummy had been used.
The defendant was employed by the plaintiffs on board their
boats in the capacity of superintendent of steamboats until
about a year ago, when he was discharged from that post,
and offered one in the service of the plaintiffs at Stratford.
The defendant refused the offer, and himself set up a boat
called the Alma, plying between Ipswich and Harwich,
without express leave of the plaintiffs, but apparently by
their tacit permission. The defendant for some time used the
dummy in question for embarking and disembarking his
passengers ; but as the necessity for vigorous opposition
between the boats became apparent the times of starting
and returning of the two boats became apparent the times
of starting and returning of the two boats were made the
same, confusion arose between the passengers, and led to
i
obstruction, and to aninterchange ofabuse and violence. The
plaintiffs, therefore, put up a board warning all strangers
from the dummy. The attention of the defendant was
therefore drawn to it, and he said " All right ;" but
his conduct afterwards exhibited no deference to the warn-
ing, for he continued to act as before, and finally, the plain-
tiffs determined to try by this action the right to exclude
the defendant and his customers. A great deal of evidence
was gone into to show the custom of the port in respect of
vessels arriving alongside a quay there and finding another
vessel already moored there; but there seemed to be no
custom in respect of passengers or of steamboats. Evidence
was also given to make out that the dummy was a nuisance,
but although it has been on the same spot for several years,
it was not discovered by the witnesses to be a nuisance
until after the present dispute arose.
The jury found the existence of the custom and the fact
of the obstruction as alleged, and that the dummy was a
nuisance if the use of it was confined to a private person,
but not a nuisance if the use was open to the public gene-
rally.
The learned Judge told the jury that they must answer
absolutely the question about the nuisance, as a nuisance by
obstruction of a highway or a navigable river was a nuisance
though the obstruction might be a convenience to the public.
The jury thereupon found that the dummy was not a
nuisance.

The learned Judge then directed a verdict to be entered
for the defendant on the issues as to the custom and the ob-
struction, but for the plaintiffs on the other issues, with
leave to the plaintiffs to move to set aside the defendant's
verdict and enter one for themselves, if the Court should
think that the pleas on which the defendant had succeeded
were hot supported either wholly or in some material part.
Verdict for the plaintiff.