The Sun.
London, England, 1826-06-21 00:00:00

(THE REPRESiNTAiIVE.]

The Memlwo. who are to comp6se the 'new Ptah-
.
merit may lat'uow pretty Actor-ably calculated ; and in spite of
some assertions we have lieessai or reed to the contrary, it is evident
that the Cause of Cetholitity his eetioutly lost by this election; so
much so as to render it very improbable that the Douse of Lords
during tot continuanee Of the Parliamega, be troubled by a
Bill from from the Commons o the aubject. That, to people
who view the Boman Catholie Qntstion as we do, this (*cum
stance should give much` plea,mre, it is needless to say. A no
kits linequivocal proof of the dislike which the English public
eehortain of this questien is displayed even In places where,
from other canoes, gentlemen favourable to it are returned,
in the speeches, which these successful candidate* find it.
peeessary to make. Nowhere has any gentlemen ventured
to allude to his vote in favour of the measure; but with
Am apology. Mr. Plunlcett tells his collegiate electors that he is
sorry to differ with them ; but assures them that he has the hula.
rests of the Mirth of Ireland fully as much at heart as they,
Mr. thaskitsson laments the misfortune which makes him diffid
from so many of hie constituents at Liverpool. In Surrey, Mr,
Denison tells his friends, Win, believed in the peculiar doctrine,.
of the church of Boole he would he deserving of a etli of a bed-
41'0, and that in his opinion granting Catholic Emancipation
would hi fact strengthen the Church a England. Lord Mil;
too, in Yorkshire, porgyriees the Revolution of HEW, and
14 'very angry that any nne should claim to he more Pro-
ne:tent than he. At' Ipswich Colonel Tonne saye some-
thing rather unintelligible to the same point. In London,
the eloquent voice of Waithmain• fOrmerly so admirable on
this, Juil 00 most other questions, iy quite mute with respect
to the woes of Ireland ; and Alderman Wood's friends, in.
44ling unlike Livery to vote for' him, most cautiously avoid any
reference whatever to Ilia opinions with respect to emancipation._
;14 66°1 assns Due MU. Wog anxious to apologize and explain,

and we have no doubt that many secretly curse, the liberality
which induced them to vote with so little regard for the wishes
of their constituents.

There is one consideration urged in favour of the measure,
which appears to us to be the only one on which it is tenable—
namely, that it may be advantageous to the Church of England.
This is urged by -men of such talent that. it would lie merely im-
pertinent to•say that it is absurd,- but it strikes us that it would
be very hard to prove it. Beyond question, Dr. Doyle, or the
late Dr. Milner, or Mr. O'Connell, or any of these gentry,
would not 'advocate it if they thought ero. If it were proved,
then let Catholic Emancipation be passed without delaybut for
no other reason. As to its tranquillizing Ireland, that is absurd
indeed. As long as Ireland is inhabited by a redundant -and
wretched peasantry, completely Under the guidance of an intole-
rant priesthood, (who certainly, whatever may happen with the
gentry, will never cease to hate and oppose ,the Established Chureh,)
so long all hopes of its being tranquillized by any measures but
those of coercion may he given up. And as long as it continues
disturbed, so long the collateral benefits. of the ►ntroduction of
English capital, &e. &c, which the advocates of Emancipation
dwell upon, will not take place.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, .luNt 20.

•• WATSON V. CLIZIIENT. • •
The plaintiff in this case is a linendraper, residing in the Strand,
adjoining to the offices of the defendant, who is proprietor of the
Morniny Chronicle. The action was brought to recover com-
pensation Tor the injury and annoyance which the plaintiff and'his
family su&red, in consequence of the noise and motion created by
the working, of u steam-engine erected by the defendant for the
purpose of printing his newspapers.
Mr. GURNEY stated the CLIS.e. lie said, that notwithstanding
the niiisance had been already proved on a former trial, which it
was necessary for the plaintiff to appeal to, and on that-occasion
verdict was returned for Mr. Watson, no steps had been taken by
the defendant to remedy nuisance complained of; and when the
plaintiff, after having waited patiently five months, remonstrated
with the defendant, and requested of him to abate the evil com-
plained of, the defendant aggravated the injury by, insult, and
wrote to his client to say, that he believed Mr. Watson wished to
make a job of the•businesC , The defendant stated that he was
about to make such, alterations as would abate the nuisance, by
removing the Machinery to another part of his premises, and by
erecting a well between the engine and the party wall, by which
a apace would be left, which he would fill up with sawdust, or
some. ether substance, to prevent the noise from annoying the
pleintiff. All this, it was said. would be done in the course of a
fortnight. The premise, however, remaioed unfulfilled, and con-
, eequently Mr. Watson was under the necessity of bringing the
present action to procure redress; and he (Mr. Gurney) hoped
the Jury would by their verdict give such damages as in future to
prevent his client from 'uttering the same annoyance.
Belpre the plaintiff's witnesses were celled, the Attorney-General,
who with Mr. Searlett aml Mr. Denman conducted the defendan.'s
calm, stated that as touch as could be done toward* the abatement
of the nuisance .had been dyne, and us' that was not thought suf-
ficient, he was willing to submit to an arbitrator, to decide what
further measures were necessary fur the abatement of the grievance.

The Loup CHIEF Justicu asked whether the defouliTut would
undertake to remove the machinery entirely, if the arbitrator
should be of opinion that no remedy could be devised for the
abatement of the nuisance.

The Arco sNrY-GtitaaA said he did not think he could, in

ust►ce to his client, make any other offer. If it ehould turn out
that no (lather amendments could be made, his client would of
course be compelled to remove his establishment.

A few mintites were spent in attempting to bring about anac-
commodation, but to no purpose.
Mr. Henry Burford
.was .then 'called and examined. The wit-
nest occupies the house adjoining the office of the Morning
,Chro•
tide, on the east side. On the 7th November last, and ever since
the witness was in Mr. Watson's house, he heard the noise mule
by the working of the machine on the defendant's premises, which
he thought was rather increased since the' former trial. There
way also a, tremulous motion occasioned by'the strokes of the
machine. There is a nine-inch wall between the respective pre-
mises, notwithstanding which,. the sound and motion occasioned
by the working of the machine disturbed the witness and his
family, and prevented thim front enjoying their necessary rest.
On his cross-examination by the Comstost SxxcEAST, the wit-
ness stated that his observation of the increased inconvenience to
Mr. Watson's prernihes applied to the back part of his house,
Elizabeth Miller, ft relation of the plaintiff, said she was in the
habit of stopping at the plaintiff's; sometimes as often es two utglits
in the week, and that she found it impossible forest, in Cfmipquene:e
of the noise and motion ermited by the working of the steam engine
and machine on the adjoining premises. ; Several other 'witnesses
were called, the principal part of whom had been examined on
the former trial,' all of whom agreed in representing the noise and
motion of the engine as an annoyance to the defendant. Some of
the witnesses thought the noise had increased. • - • -
The Arroastsx-Gxianard -addressed the Jury, admitting the
nuisance, and submitting to their consideration the amount of
damages to which his client under all the circumstances should be
liable.
After a short charge from the Loan Cm r JUSTIeri
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1001.