The Sun.
London, England, 1829-01-28 00:00:00

NARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Sir G. FARRANT, Mr. DYER, and Mr. CONANT,
the presiding Magistrates at this office yesterday,
were occupied for upwards of two hours in hearing
t' case which involved a breach, or alleged breach, of
the Building Act, possessilig no interest Wtiatever,
beyond the circumstance that the parties contending
the point in dispute are both members of the
peerage.
The facts of the ease are these I—the Marqui'.;
Camden occupies a mansion, No. gg, in Arlington-
street, Piccadilly, which, with tin adjoining one oc-
cupied by Earl Sefton, are receded a considerable
distance from the front of the street, within a large
court-yard enclosed with iron gates. Immediately
abutting upon the south side of this court-yard, and
on the premises of the Marquis Camden, is thehouse
No. 23, standing forward in the street, occupied by
the };arl of Belfast, and consequently a wall, hither-
to a blind one, runs from the front iron gates of the
Court-yard to the immediate residence of Lord Cam-
dcr►, along the north side, and seemingly a part of
the house of Lord Belfast; and in this dead wall
Lord Belfast, it appears, has lately opened a window
from one of the upper apart.i►ents of his house look-
ing directly into the front court-yard, which has
hitherto been deemed by Lord Camden us exclu-
sively belonging to his residence; and against this
alleged infringement of the Building Act the Mar-
quis Camden called for the interference of Mr. Fox-
hall, the acting district surveyor, who, in pursuance
of his duty, summoned the Earl of Belfast to this
office for a breach of the 14th of Geo. llL•cap. 78,
by ranking an opening through a party-Wall, without
the consent of the second party to the said wall—
namely, the Marquis Camden. ,

Mr. Adolphus attended nominally for Mr. Foxhall,
but, in fact, to represent the interests of Lord
Camden ; and Mr. Broderick appeared on behalf of
Lord Belfast, his Lordship himself being also pre-
sent in person during the proceedings.
The whole question turned upon whether or not
the wall in dispute was really, in the proper sense
of the term, a party one, and upon this point the
three sections of the Act, 14, 26, and 60, which bear
upon the subject, were twisted and Burned into all
the shapes and forms that the ingenuity of the
learned gentlemen could suggest, to favour their re-
spective interests.
Mr. Brodriek contended, that this wall could not
be a party wall, as it belonged exclusirely to Lord
Belfast's house.

111 r. Adolphus argued that the wall in question
was clearly a party wall, and in proof stated that a
part of the ground upon xshich the wall is built was
originally belungiug to the court-yard of Lord Cam-
den's house, and is measured to his Lordship in the
lease of the premises which his Lordship holds from
the Crowe.

Several witnesses, chiefly surveyors, were ex-
amined upon the subject, and their evidence went
decidedly to show, that the wall was a party wall ;
but as there are. several Acts of Parliament, of the
reigns of Anne and Charles 11., which bear upon the
disputed point, the case was adjourned for a fortnight,_
to afford the counsel on each side an opportunity of
looking more closely into the construction of those
Acts; and that perhaps in the mean time some ar-
rangement might take place between the noble per-
sons in dispute, without the necessity of calling for
any decision from the Magistrates.