Star.
London, England, 1827-04-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Aran 47.
The LORD CHANCELLOR came down to Lincoln's Inn
Fall, this morning, at eleven o'clock, for the purpose
of giving Judgment in the cases of es Pitt v. Davis,"
14 Latham v. Parry," and ,g Brown v. De Tastet.".
After the parties concerned in the above causes bad
been waiting in the Hall for some time,
His LORDSHIP directed his Secretary to inform them,
that, in consequence of his having a violent head-ache,
be should not be able to dispose of any of the cases he
had appointed for-Judgment, this morning, but he
would certainly do so to-morrow. His Lordship ordered
a notice to be affixed to the Hall, stating, that he should
sit in his private room, at ten o'clock, to-morrow.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Arm rt.
"' The Court were occupied with pleas and demurrers,
of no public interest.
In the course of the morning, his HONOUR said, that
be was very anxious to know whether there remained
any cases in'which he had noesergiven his judgment ?
is I am very desirous, indeed," observed his Honour,
el to ascertain this fact, as soon as possible; and I hope
that the Gentlemen of the Bar will have the goodness
to inform me whether they are aware of any and cases?'
Mr. HORNR assured his Honour that he would make
the necessary inquiries on the subject.

COURT OF KING'S BENCii, Ana. rt.
WATSON 9. OLIIIMIUM

This wile an action for a nuisance. The plaintiff is
s linendriper, residing at the corner of Surrey-street,
in the Strand, and the defendant is the proprietor of the
Morning Chroxick Newspaper. The action was brought
against the defendant for having erected on his pre-
mises, adjoining plaintiff's house, a steam engine and
printing presses, the noise of which occasioned consi-
derable annoyance to the plaintiff and his family.
The defendant pleaded " Not Guilty."
The copies of the two records of the Judgments in for."
mer trials of " Watson u. Clement," were first produced
med read ; they bore date inlantary, 1825, and De-
eiliber, 1828.
Francis Watson etamined.—.Xnew the plaintiff Wat-
son, who resided at the corner of Surrey-street, in the
Strand; also knew the defendant, Mr. Clement, who is
the ostensible proprietor of the Morning Chronick. In
November last year witness slept at the houce of Mr.
Watson, and was much annoyed during the night by a
loud thumping noise, which witness supposes proceeded
from the working of the printing machines at the
Morning Chronicle office.- The noise commenced at
three o'clock in the morning, and continued about four
hours. Witness was awakened by the noise, and has
no doubt that it came from Mr. Clement's house. Wit-
ness was examined on the two former trials ; was in the
frequent habit of visiting the plaintif, and whenever
be slept at the house, was sure to be disturbed. The
disturbance was greater during the night than in the
day. Witness was engaged in a noisy business himself,
and was not as likely to be disturbed As another person.
Cross-examined—Witness could not recollect the
particular night that he slept in Watson's house. Re-
members that Watson told him at the time, that he in-
tended bringing an action, and spoke about his (witness)
giving evidence on the trial.
Mr. FtcA ALATT.TheII you went to bed for the pur-
pose of hearing a noise. Is not that the fact? (Laughter.)
The night in November was the first night th.t wit-
ness ever slept in the house, but has slept there since re-
peatedly. The noise was like a continual thumping, or
the working of a great pump. The locking up of the
for ms also occasioned a noise, like knocking of blocks.
Mr. Burford, residing in the next house to the plain-
tiff in Surrey-street, described the nature of the nuisance
in nearly the same language as the last witness. Pre-
vious to the erection of the printing machine, the nui-
sance did not exist. There is a greater noise on Saturday
nights than on any other occasions, because several
Sunday Papers were printed on that night. In witness's
opinion, it was impossible for the plaintiff's family to
enjoy comfortable repose while the nuisance existed.
Miss Ann Miller had been examined on the last trial ;
is a friend t 8 plaintiff; has frequently slept at Mr. Wa-
tson's house since the last trial, and was invariably dis-
turbed early in the morning; always heard the clock
strike the hours of four, five, six, and seven. Witness
slept in November and December last, at Mt. Watson's,
end slept there last week; the noise was still as into-
lerable as before.
Cross-examined—Witness was generally in bed from
four to six hours before she heard the noise.
J. Miller—ls a stationer, living in Cursitor-street,
Chancery-lane; has frequently taken a bed at plain-
tiff's house ; cannot say he slept there ; he no sooner
fell into a doze than be was roused by a noise like the
striking of blocks.
Mr. SCAALETT then addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant. He admitted, that if the Jury believed that
the plaintiff was disturbed and annoyed by a noise,
whether it was a rumbling or thumping noise, he was
entitled to a verdict. No matter how beautiful the opera.
tion of this engine might be, or how useful to the public,
if it had been productive of serious injury to the plain-
tiff, be was entitled to damages. fie hoped, however,
to be able to convince the Jury that every thing,
which it was possible to do had been done by the
defendant, and that the present action was one of a
very.vexatious character. Two actions had been pre-
viously brought, and he admitted that from the period
when the last of those actions had been brought, un-
til the period when Mr. Clement set about altering
his engine, the nuisance bad existed. Previous to the
last action Mr. Clement conceived conscientiously, that
no reasonable man living in the Strand—a part of the
town where coaches passed every hour of the night
—could find fault with the inconvenience arising from
the engine. It was well known that persons coming
to town from the country could not sleep for some
nights in any of the noisy parts of the town ; but
where persons were accustomed to live in those parts
of. the town, they could sleep as soundly as its the
country. However, the Jury would hear that Mr.
Clement had done all in his power to meet the ob.
jection of the plaintiff. The plaintiff complained of the
vibration which was caused by the engine in his houna
and to remedy this inconvenience, the defendant actually
effected a wall between the two houses, and filled up the
ite between with saw-dust to the depth of 15 inches.
arrangement. however, did not satisfy the plaintiff;
le said, you must remove your engine—it will be a
great expense—but no matter, it must be removedi In
compliance with this suggestion, Mr. Clement had ac-
tually removed the engine, at an expense of actual
hundred pounds. Whilst this was being effected, the
defendant could not of course give up his property,
which was the source of a Urge income to him; but