The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-08-30 00:00:00

THURSDAY.

The trial of this cause was resumed this morning at
nine o'clock. Mr. Thom, one of the plaintiffs, was ex-
amined and cross-examined at some length. At the con-
clusion of Mr. Thom's examination, a conference took place
among the counsel engaged in the case, with a view to
shorten it, when it was arranged that the question whether
the defendants had caused damage, and, if so, the amount,
should be referred to an arbitrator, and that the only
question to be decided by the jury should be whether the
defendants, assuming that they had done damage, were
justified in letting the water go into the Yarrow in
the way they had done. Engineering witnesses
were then called in support of this proposition.—Mr.
Serjeant Wilkins, who appeared for the contractors,
said, as his clients' interest was the same as that of the
Corporation, he should not trouble the jury with any re-
marks.—The Attorney-General, for the defendants, con-
tended, that notwithstanding the censure passed upon
all corporate bodies in general, and the Liverpool Corpo-
ration in particular, by Sir Fitzroy Kelly, he should be
surprised if the jury did not come to the conclusion that
nothing had been done more than what was proper and
perfectly right. The legislature had given the Corporation
powers to supply the town with pure water, and had ac-
companied those powers with a direction to give compen-
sation to injured and prejudiced rights. The legislature
had prescribed the mode of obtaining that compensation.
The plaintiffs might obtain it quite irrespective of this
action, which was, consequently, wholly unnecessary.
Why should not the plaintiffs take their compensation as
prescribed by law ? It would be immaterial to the plain-
tiffs, while to the defendants it was not, for they could
not grant compensation in this action without admitting
that which they most emphatically denied, that they had
done a wrongful act, for which they were liable to an action.
Under the act of parliament the Corporation were made
the judges of the nature of the works to be executed,
their powers being only limited by restraining them
from exercising it to the damane of others. The works
to be:executed were on the largest scale, for no less than 700
acres would be covered with water, and the extent along
the valley would be no less than eight miles. It behoved
those who had the execution of such gigantic works to do
so not only with regard to individual interests, but also
with regard to the safety of the surrounding districts—for
great catastrophes had occurred and might occur again in
connexion with works of this description. They had taken
every means in their power to prevent public accident or
private injury while they carried out a great public benefit.
He asked for the fair and impartial judgment of the jury,
whether those intrusted with the direction and execution
of these works had exercised a wise and sound discretion
in what they had done, and he thought the jury would
come to but one conclusion, and give a verdict for the de-
fendants. Several engineering and other witnesses were
then called to prove that nothing had been done but what
was proper in the execution of the works, and that the
district was liable to extensive floods. At half-past six
o'clock the court adjourned.