Star.
London, England, 1805-02-25 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 23.

' •
TRIMMER ARP OTHERS V. ANDRIW FORSTER.
The Plaintiffs are brick-makers, in the pari6 of
Iffeworth, and this aftion was brought againtk the
Company of the Grand Junftion Canal, foT obfiruft.
ing them in thi havigation of a certain cct commu-
nicating with that canal.
Mellis. Eluting and GAILIUDIV raid, that the Plain-
tiffs rented a field of Mr. Scott, and 'Come other ad-
jacent ground of Sir Henry Hawley. A fmall flip
intervened between thefe fields and the canal, which
Sir Henry Hawlet, undet the Aft for the formation
of the Grand This
Canal, had made over to the
Proprietors. This was employed as a towing-path,
and is Mimed niacin Sion-hill. Through tins track
the Plaintiffs hid made a narrow interfeaion, and
over it had thrown a very commodious bridge. The
queftion was, whether this cut, which eflablifbed an
aquatic communication with the Plaintiffs works, in-
terfered with the rights of the Canal Company ?The li
Learned Connie' Paid, that Sir Henry Hawley, who
was feifed of the gtound in fee, under the compul
Pion of the Ratute, had parted with this flip of land;
and they admitted that Sir Henry did convey to the
Troika under the AEI, the towing-path, for all the
purpofes Of the canal, but not the fee fimple of the
foil. The great object of the Aft was, to extend be.
neficially to the country, that vaft fyffem of canal
communication ; and for this purpofe, the fohjeas of
the realm were compelled to furrender their indivi-
dual rights for the public good. The deign of Per.
liament was not to injure the Proprietors of the adja-
cent .ground, who Rill retained the fame original
tient, provided they did not °barna the navigation
which the Legiflathre interpofed to prltea.
The claufe in the 65th page of the fiatute was
read. ehating, that any owner or owners of the land
contiguous to the canal may build, confiruft, or ufe
any wharf. weigh.beams, or wareboufes adjoining
fuels canal ; and any lord or lady of the manor may
build, confiruft, and ufe fuck wharfs. &c. and may
land goods thereupon, or noon the banks lying be-
tween the fame and the laid canal ; and ma I make and
life proper and convenient places for boats and other
veffels to turn, &c.

The Plaintiffs' Counfel explained that their clients
had engaged, at veil expence, thefe grounds, for the
purpofes of their trade ; that their fuccefs entirely
depended upon prefacing this water communication :
that they had all the rights in them which Sir Henry
Hawley poieffed that they had done nothing
without the meaning and intent of this clank. That
provifion of the A would he wholly nugatory and
Afore!, if the owners of adjacent ground could not
ihilte a cut actors the towing path, and if they were
obliged to haul their Tenets up the bank before they
could enter the Grand Junaion Canal.
Dud ELtawsneovort.—.4 Do you fay, notwith-
handing the alienation under the Aft, the towing-
path is/our own land ?"
Mr. E1ti1t1111......" I do contend for the foil, but
the Company has the right to the towing path for all
the porisores of their navigation."
Lord ELLasisortouon.—“ The matter will re-
roles ithlf then into an enquiry on the conftrudtion
of the 4eed, and the AEI of 14arliament."
Mr. 8eatnik...N...14 True, my Lord; with this ad-
dition; that the Jury will find the fart, whether the
tut add bridge at all interfere with the navigation."
The StiLiCrivit Gls aaat, for the Defendant, hid,
that if the Plaintiffs could make one cut by law,
they blight tnake a hundred, and as many corref-
pOndenatidges, and fo might all the proprietors of
lands for fifty miles ; thus the whole line of towing-
path *odd be nothing but a fyftem of bridges, and
the Jury icohld confider, whether this fucceffinn of
:Weak gni &than would or would not be an obltruc-
lion to a navigation wholly dependent, not upon
windi aid tideb, but on the mukular ftrength of ant.
meals employed in the molt laborious and oppteillve
dirty.
&Ceti' witrieffes were examined, who depofed to
the facility with which the honks paffed the bridge,
to its botivenient width, and to the fmallnefs of the
afcent. Others gave teftimony to the piles driven
in, and rnbbilh thrown to obfirua the channel of
communication made by the Plaintiffs. In the fe-
quel tt (pedal verdia was taken in there words—
The briJit is so afirullion or prthdice to the navigation or
patb.
This important queQion, fo affeCting the
proprietors of land on the banks of all the canals in
the kingdom, will neat term be fubmitted, in the
fhape of a cafe, to the confidetation of the Court of
King's Bench.
There were only two other Special Jury caufes.,-.
In that of TILLSTONI v. Sir W/4. ASI.OBI/Its HAM, it
was agreed to take a verdia for 15991. fuNeEt to an
agreement between the parties. 'This verdia was to
apply to two carries, and was intended to terminate
both.—ln WARREN v. Dix, the view required by
the Jury had not been taken, in contequence of
which she record was withdrawn. Mr. Eesaiaz
rave notice of this circumflance, left the Defendant
thould apply during Term for judgment, as in cafe of
a nonfnit.---Of the Common Jury enures, there was
none of the leaft intereft, excepting that of