Star.
London, England, 1802-09-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE..

WEST' INDIA DOCKS COMMERCIAL ROAD.

INVIIIITION XEFORE JOSEPH SURCHILII ESQ AND

A SPECIAL 'JURY.

In the laft Seffion of Parliament an AQ was
palled for making a Road from the Weft India
Docks to Aldgate, and the execution of the plan
receffarily compels many perfons, whole property
lies in the line of the intended Road, to part with
it. In cafes where the Truftees of the Road, and
the Proprietors of the Lands or Houfes, cannot
agree as to the price or indemnity, the Ad direas
the Sheriff of Middlefex to fummon a Jury to af-
leis the value.

On Friday and Saturday laft the Sill cafes came
on be tried, at the Britannia Tavern, Lime.
houfe, before Mr. BoacHiLL, the under Sheriff
of Middlefes, and a Special jury.
A prelitninary queiliGn arofe as to the right to
begin, which was argued by the Counfel at great
length, and was determined by the Under Sheriff
to be in the Claimants. _ _ _

The cafe of Mr. Pro&or was firft tried, in which
the Jury found a verdia for 2501.
In the cafe of Mr. Smith, the verdi& was for
3001.
In the cafe of Mr. Payne, which. was for a piece
of land, about half an acre, clofe to Limehoufe
Chuirchiard—the verdi& was for 4501.
All thefe verdicts very much exceeded the ten-
ders made by the Trufiees:
The cafe of Meas. Hale and Salter lalled feve-
ral hours. The ground in qUeftion confined of
half an acre, fituate in Gun-lane, about two hun-
dred yards from the entrance of the Dock. The
Counfel for the Claimants contended, that it was
ground eligible for building houfes for the refi-
dence of perfons conneaed with the Weft India
Docks, that it would have been built upon whether
the Commercial Road had or had not been pro-
jefted, and that the compenfation fhould proceed
upon the principle of its being building ground.—,
The Counfel for the Tru i nees nfifted that it was to
be cotnpenfated for as garden ground, as it had
always been ufed, in which cafe the value -did not
exceed aaol. The Truftees had tendered only
aool. The Jury gave a verdla for Soot.

MARSHALSEA COURT, SEPT. zo.
DUCZINYOUNG v. DICE ON.
The plaintiff and defendant in this cafe were
bail to the extent of zool. for a perfon named Che.
to. The plaintiff had received information that
Chenu was on the flight, and it therefore became
necetTary that he ihonid be furrendered in dif-
ehaige of his bail. The plaintiff accordingly em-.
ployed Mr. Ackerman, an attorney, to feize Che-
nu, which was accordingly done.
Mr. Ackerman fwore that he had been employ-
ed by the plaintiff to fecure Chenu, and that his
charge for fo doing amounted to 41. iBs. which
had been paid by the plaintiff. The Defendant
refufing to pay his moiety of the expence, induced
the plaintiff to bring the prefent anion.
On the part of the defendant it was urged, and
very much infified on by the Learned Connie),
that Chenu had been furrendered without the
knowledge or confent of the defendant, and that
the (offender took place three months before any
inch meafure was at all necelary. It was there,
fore contended that the defendant could not be
liable under there peculiar circurnftances. It was, I
however, clearly proved on the part of the plain-
tiff, that the defendant had Ibbfequendy approved
of the feizure of Cheats, and had declared his "readi-
nes to pay one half of the moues attending fact
a Rep.
Mr. Serjeaat MARSHALL, who tried the mule,
Rated to the Jury with his ulna ability the pro-
Inkiest features of the cafe. He remarked, that
there could be no doubt refpe6ing the validity of
the charge, as had Chews not been taken, both the
plaintiff and defendant in this anion mutt have
paid the principal (um with which Chenu had
been charged. The Jury found a verdie for the
plaintiff. „,„6

LONDON MARKETS.