Star.
London, England, 1822-12-11 00:00:00

cotarr OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER io.

TIIE SING V. LORD CADOGAN.
This was an indictment against the Earl of Cado-
gan, for suffering St wall, which supports a terraced
road in Chelsea, on the banks of the Thames, to re-
main in a state of dangerous decay. The first count
of the indictment stated, that a number of trees be-
longing to the defendant were growing near the wall,
and that their roots, pressing against it, caused it to
.fall down; and proceeded to set forth, that the de-
fendant was bound to repair the wall, by reason of
his tenure of certain lands. The other counts charged
generally, that the defendant was liable to repair by
reason of his tenure; and that, being so liable, -he
permitted the wall to be and remain in decay.
On the part of the prosecution it appeared, that
Lord Cadogan was Lord of the Manor of Chelsea,
and that the manor was co-extensive with the parish.
Aged witnesses were called, who proved that the pre-
de,e,sors of Lord Caftan had, at different times, for
a period of more than fifty years, repaired different
portions of the wall. The cage, at one end of the
wall which was built upon it, was used by the parish
for the confinement of offenders, but ihey had paid
an acknowledgment of half a crown a year to his
Lordship for its use. A claim bad been made on the
part of Lord Cadogan for a quit rent for stairs lead-
ing to the river, and on refusal to pay it they were
stopped up. It appeared that the road was 30 feet
wide ; the trees were cline to the wall ; and on the
other side was a row of houses which did not belong
to Lord Cadogan. The trees had been claimed by
Lord Cadogan, and were fenced off by railing which
he supported. This road was described as an ancient
road in an Act of Parliament passed in the reign of
George L where it was represented as leading from
James-street, Westminster, to Chelsea Ferry. Mr.
Robinson, an eminent surveyor, proved that the road
was in a dangerous condition, and thought its decay
to be attributed in a great measure to.the roots of the
trees pressing against it.
Mr. SCA RLETT, for the defendant, relied on two
grounds of answer to the prosecution : first, that the
road itself was not shewn to be an ancient road, being
evidently intended for the comforr of the inhabitants
of the houses which were built long within the time
of legal memory ; and secondly, that if the wall was
originally built by the predeceslor of Lord Cadogan,
it was dedicated to the Public, who alone, as they
enjoyed the benefit, ought to repair it. To fortify his
case, he called a number of witnesses, who proved
that seePral individuals along the line of the wall
had repaired such portions of it as were before their
own prem::es.
The LORD CIIIRFJus-ricE observed, that supposing
Lord Cadogan had no liability to repair by reason of
his tenure, he did tint think the Jury could convict
him of a nuisance on the first count of the declara-
tion; for suffe:ing his trees to injure the wall ; because
that count, read altogether, charged a neglect to per-
form a duty arising from tenure, and could only be
interpreted with fairness as directed to this end. The
first point for the Jury to consider was, whether-this
road existed as a raised road before the time of legal
memory ? because, if it was created since, a liability to
repair from time immemorial could not be supported.
If they thought the road did so exist, they would'
then weigh the-evidence on each side as to the cus
tom, and decide for themselves whether they were
satisfied from that evidence that Lord Cadogan was
bound-to repair by reason of his tenure.
The Jury retired for an hour, and then returned a
verdict of Guilty, deciding the liability of •Lord Ca-
dogan to repair the wall, tor the spaces set forth in
the indictment as ruinous.