Star.
London, England, 1824-06-14 00:00:00

AINSLIE V. Linn.

This was an action for damages. The parties belonged to an fn.
diaman, of which the defendant was First Mate, and, during the
absence of the Captain, took command of. the vessel. Plaintiff
having accidentally fallen ovLrboard, the defendant ordered the
boatswain to tie him up and flog him, as he said, for going over-
board; he, the plaintiff, nic.eiv‘d three dozen lashes, whicis cut
hint severely, started the blood, and he fell during the operation.
Plaintiff declared he accidentally fell overboard, and called a varier
of evidence, different Officers in the ship, who said it was an acci-
dent, and that he was not drunk.

The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the evidence, and the Jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £BO.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 12.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND V. CLOWES.
This was an action brought by the Duke of Northum-
berland against the defendant, for a nuisance, in erect-
ing a steam engine close to Northumbei land House. A
wooden plan of Northumberland House and gardens was
produced in Court.

Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN stated, that the Noble Duke,
in coming into Court, claimed no more than other sub-
jects of his Majesty, but he had an equal right to the
protection of the laws. The defendant was a respect
able printer, residing contiguous to Northumberland
House, and had last September erected a steam-engine,
by ‘vhich Northumberland house was much annoyeJ.
They complained of smoke, want of water, and a great
noise, re,embling a threshing-machine, carts, or remote
thunder; and, when the wind was in the north-east, a
prodigious quantity of Mack snow falling so thick on the
pavement, that a person could write his name on it.
To prevent this smoke the defendant had latterly used
coke instead of coal, but finding the coke not to answer
so well as coal, he only recurred to it on days that visits
were expected, to inspect the premises, after which ire
reverted to the use of coal. The Duke had expended
about 10Q,0001. in repairing and beautifying Northum-
berland House, and had employed British artisans
wholly for that purpose. After expending so much, it
was surely hard that the noble proprietor should be
driven from it. The servants could not open the win-
dows oil account of the smoke, particularly the sky-
light which lighted the grand staircase, and which was
near the steam-engine. The effect of opening windows
would be that the smoke would injure the paintings.
Tile walls were shaken by the operation of the engine
—an offensive smell wit, felt—and great injury was
done to the herbage and flowers. After the erection of
the engine a scarcity of water was felt at Northumber-
land House, on account of the supply reqoisite fur the
steam. It was true the defendant had dug a well for
the engine, but its effect was to draw the water from the
Duke's well. Northumberland House was originally
the property of the Earl of Northampton, but had been
in possession of the Northumberland family for two
centuries. The Noble Duke, in bringing this action,
did not ask to recover dainaqes, but only to ascertain,
how this nuisance, which affucted his property, could •
be abared.—Evidence being calved on the part of the
plaintiff, a proposition was made to refer the cause,
which was objected to.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proceeded to comment
upon the evidence, and said he should call witnesses to
disprove it. _

At the suggestion of the Court, a reference was again
proposed, and finally it was agteed to take a verdict for
tLc plaintiff—Damages 1,0001. subject to the reference
of Mr. Selwyn.