Star.
London, England, 1817-11-06 00:00:00

'• ,
• • ~e, a., •
• •

.Law I:ELLldEticz. •

•

Cottßt OP ERCIIiQUER,

400 V. TIM 'WATERT:fa .141DOIS COMPANY.
This was an Action multr an order from the Court
of Chancery, to determine the validity of tl.e verdict'
of a Juty of the County of Middlesex. stimmuned
to inquire into roue of some premises lately oc.
supled by Mr. Egg, the gunsmith ; and also of all
the (Pamir sustained by Mr. Egg by being dispos-
seised of those• premises few the purposes of the
Bridge Company. The Jury this day was further
directed te uy, on the suppositit,n that the former
verdict was illegal, whether Mr. Egg was' entitled
to any sum beyond thAt (1/3,700) awarded by that
verdict,. Ili damagas for the trespass which had berg
committed,

Mr. Devrteet stated the objections to the former
verdict. which he contended were of such a nature
as to set that verdict aside. The first objection was,
that in the Act of Parliament under which the Bridge
Company acted, there were no words which autho-
rized, them So dispossess the tenants of the Duchy of
Lancaster, of whom Mr.' Egg was one. The second
objection wits, that the schedule of the Act of Par-
liament only mentioned the dwelling-house of Mr.
Egg, and nor Ms manufactory; gad therefore that•
the right of 'the Bridge Company did. not extend to
it., though trier had taken possession of the whole.
The nest oliection, and that which was insisted upon
at greatest length was, chat the Act of Parliament.
directed, that to assess the value of premises withinl,
the City and Liberties of Westminster, a Westniin-H
tier Jury should be summoned by the High Bailiff;
it was contended that the Savoy WAS in the City and
Liberties of Westminster, and that therefore the Ter.{
diet of a Middlesex 'my summoned bi the Sheriff,
WAS 'Void. To support the assertion that the Savoy
was within the City and Liberties of Westminster,
Mr. Dauncey said, he should produce a variety of
ancient documents. The first. which he thought
was going back fie enough. was an ettract from
Domesday Book. compiled in the year 1066, in which
it was stated, that the Abbot of Westminster had
the jurisdiction of the whole Viii of Westminster.
"Fbe nett wasagraat of Henry 111. in the 30th year
of his toga, of the houses in the street called the
Strand, formerly belonging to Bryan de lusula or
Delisle. The next was a- cooveyance of the same
premises? under the description of a piece of land in
the Veil of Westminster to the Earl of Lancaster.
The nexcwas a licence in 1293 to Edmund, Earl of
Lancastes to embattle his house in the ;latish of St.
Clementines, callathe Savoy. There were vari-
ous other,ancient documents, in which the Savoy was
described, as in the parish of St. Clement Danes and
St. Mary ale-Strand, and in which the Strand was de.
nosujeated the Great Street.of Westminster. In 1513
the Savoy was erected .into an Hospital, being de-
scribed as-lying withoet the Bar of the New Temple,
is the Parish of Sr. Clement Danes. Ansi it was
nottill the 9th of-Hen: VIII.-when the Savoy was
for some purposes erected into a sort of septiate pa-
res& In that year there was a treaty between the
Master of the;Savoy and the Rector of St. Cleineetii
for the remission of the tythes diroto the laitet trials%
the Savoy, The Savoy was thetfdescribed as beint
notoriously in the pariah of St. Clentent Danes. lo
1558 the Vill of Westminster was constituted by.
patent a city. But on none of these occasions
las the Savni taken out of that Viii or City is which
it was included, as belonging to St. Clement Danes
and St. Mary-le•Strand, In the Bills of Mortality
be should also prove, that the Salty, now called St.
John Baptist of the Savoy, was included ai ease of
she ten parishes of the Liberties of Westminster ; and
the inhabitant householders of its precincts also voted
for Abe Members of Parliament for Westminster.
Tins last right was not a questionable one, as it was
fonnded on an Act of Parliament, 2d fG. 3,•e.
liareauldprove also the appointment of three
wadable* Stoat Clement Danes and the Savoy to act
fee the City of Westminster in 1745 and several pre-
AIM years. By all these foots he contended the 10-I
-Witt of the Savoy.. within the City and laberties of
Westminster was clearly proved, and even if the
Counsel on the other side should attempt to prove that
the juriadictiou, of the High Bailiff did not extend
mile it, that would not materially affect his eat-. Me
•ohieg4 dowefore 'assume that the verdict was null, and
proceed to show that the sum which bad been paid to
Mr. Egg was. very insufficient. Mr. Egg had a lease
under the Creeds tit a part of the premises of the
'Duchy.ofs Lancaster, at a rent of slt32 a year. Fur
this lease and fixtures, he had paid in 18015, £3,500.
He had-since I.dd out £2,G39 in repairs and erecting
,a manufactory; and he hod been offered £l,OOO toe
his purchase. There were about nine years of his
lease to ran. sad there could be no doubt that it
would have been renewed by the Crown either at the
same rent, or at a small advance ; that at any rate,
as in justice they were bound to do, the servants et.,
the Clown would have taken into consideration. the
;skeet sums which Mr. Egg had laid out on tte pre.
(discs. He had now been obliged to remove to pre-
jellies Mien Lot commodious, where tie could nor,
as in_ the Strand, have Ins manufactory 'carried on
udder hie own eye, and he was put to all the incon-
ireniences attendant %MOO a removal. He should egg
whimsies obit. would prove the amount of compensa-
tion due for these losses.
Witnesses were then called Inc the plaintiff.
Mr. Ithugworth.-froui the Record (Like, produced
*extracts tram the ancient documents from Donuts.
day, claw:muds. which had been reterzed to it; the
opening speech. An officer from the Company.ot
Parish Clitks proved the tact. that the Savoy had
Ikea included-among the ten parishekof the City and
Liberties of Westminster,tin the returns made to that
body under the Acts of the 2,1 and 7th of Geo. 111.
'And the Act of Parliament was put in, in which the
~Savoy was enumerated among the districts, the io;!
Ittabitaut householders of which voted for the Mem,
bers of Parlianseat for Westminster. Much evidence,
aot easily made intelligible or interesting to the pub-
lic, was adduced, iu support of the other objections
to the validity uithe former verdict.
Witnesses were then adduced to prove the value
Mr. Egg's piemises and the loss he had sti,taiiied.--
Mr. W sotto, of the Strand, -valued Mr. Egg'. pri
, owes at 4500 a year.— Mr.'Squibb at ,C6OO yr.,t,
,JrAticti, with sevea "years and three quartets porch**,
Mt, deductiug &round rent 432, and land tax he,
'iroald be worth 4,340. He igiould add £1,5V0 as
it was'Crown b-catis it was ru-re likely to