Star.
London, England, 1828-12-08 00:00:00

their carts along Wapping street, and they complained
that the defendants interrupted their passage along the
said public highway, in consequence of which the
plaintiffs were compelled to keep a greater number of
teams than they would otherwise have bees required to
employ. The defendants pleaded the general issue.
Mr. Sergeant Rosana. staled the case to the Jury,
and observed that the plaintiffs were respectable whar
fingers, who had entered into a contract with the St.
Katherine Docks Company, to carry a considerable
portion of the bricks that were to be employed in the,
erection of their docks and warehouses. In the per-
formance of that contract they had to pass over one of
the entrances to the London Docks, the proprietors of
which were the defendants in this action; of course it
'became desirable that they should pass with every free-
dom along the road, and suffer as little interruption as
Misible—it was a right that they possessed, in common
with all the King's subjects, but which, under peculiar
circumstances, was especially valuable to them. That
right had been interrupted, and, as the plaintiffs com-
plained, unnecessarily interrupted, to their great incon-
venience. When the Legislature granted the Company the
right to make these Docks, they provided at the same
time that the public way, which would be intersected
by them, should still be maintained, and a swinging.
bridge was accordingly erected over that entrance so
the Docks which connected the two parts of Wapping-
street with
,each other. Bit this bridge was often othned
for the purpose of permitting ships to pass into the
Docks; and the plaintiffs complained, that when that
was done, the delay occasioned was so great that they
were compelled S.) employ a greater number of carts in
order to perform the same quantity of labour in the same
time. That delay was occasioned either from a want
of a proper number of hands, or for some other cause
which was within the controul of the Company, and
which they ou4ht to remove. But, from the delay they
had experienced, they had suffered much injury, and
the extra expense they had been compelled to incur,
amounted to 21. Bs. a day. Par this injury they now
claimed compensation, and that compensation they ex-
pected to receive at the hands of the Jury, upon the
evidence that would this day be laid hefts.. them.
The Learned Sergeant called some witnesses, who
spoke to the delay in question extending from twenty
to forty minutes, and others described the delay, on a
similar occasion at the Swing Bridge of the West India
Docks, as being much shorter, in consequence s f the
greater attendance of men, who were divided into two
parties ; so that while one was employed in passing the
ship, the other was engaged in closing the bridge. On
the cross-examination of these witnesses, who were in the
plaintiffs service, it did not appear that any formal
Complaints had been made to the Company of the delay.
Mr. Sergeant BuSANCIORT should rest his defence on
evidence which he would calf, to show that the delay
had not been greater than was Actually necessary. He
produced the evidence of persons who lived in the
neighbourhood, and who stated, they did not think the
delay greater than was necessary for pal age of vessels
into the docks.
The CHIN/JUSTICE told the Jury, that be should have
liked the plaintiffs ease better had therobeen any for.
mai complaint made before the compensation was do.
mended, or had any particular days been proved as
time on which the delays had been greatest ; for then
the defendants might have been able to show what were
the circumstances under which those delays took place.
The Jury must however say, whether the evidence re-
Darding a shorter degree of delay at the West India
ocks did not entitle the plaintiffs to a verdict ? and if
they thought it did, they must judge, as well as they
were able, what damages the plaintiffs ought to receive.
The Jury retired fur about an hour, and then returned
a verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages 51.