Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1868-03-03
The AoUEDUCr CASE was taken up in the
Washington Criminal Court, yesterday.
Mess. p-a.t NIe.n;aI- ond Cnrri atom M

-
NIessrs Brent, Merrick and Darlington APP
peared for the prosecution, and Gen. II. IL.
/ Wells for the defence.
The Indictment, in it's first count, charges
the defendants with obstructing the Potomac,
being a navigable river, by the erection of piers
and an aqueduct from shore to shore, and con-
tinuing such distractions in such manner as to
cause shoals and quicksands in said river. The
second count charges that the said DISTINCTIONS
were made at Georgetown, on the Potomac
river The third count is for continuation OF
the nuisance at the same place ana the
| fourth count charges nuisance IN building an
auueduct across the river with additions and
alterations not needed for an aqueduct. This
latter count refers to the plan OF the, aqueduct
now made by Messrs. Wells & Quigley, which
includes as we'll carriage road and railway as
an aqueduct.
| The Jury took seats 10 the jury-chalrs.
The Court called the attention OF counsel to
the fact that Que Of the Jurors had informed
the Court that he had formed and expressed an
opinion in relation to the case.
Mr.. Merrick desired to know it that Tact alone
| disqualif d a juror. -.
The Court said he had merely mentioned it
| in order that questions might be asked the
| Juror to decide upon his present importantly.
|
wanted the case tried by fair jury, the Court
| should call ugon all Jurors who felt that they
could not try the case impartlally to leave the
jury. =,
The Court desired that any juror who ieit
that his mind was made up, should so state,
with view to being excused from service on
MIR. W. G. Magee, Of Georgetown, rose in
| tho ;urvhox and said that Ire had been fam
| iiar with the question at issue tor the past
twenty years; had heard it discussed, and had
taken part in the discussion; aud, by conse-
quence, had often expressed his opinion.
The Cont excused the juror.
The Court. The marshal will summon anoth-
er Juror: Get him as lar from the scene OF the
conflict and as high in the meridian OF lnte-
gence as possible. Laug liter.
The marshal summoned Charles Anderson,
and the Jurors after having each answered. an
iuterrogatory Of General Wells, by saying that
he had not formed OR expressed an OPINION
were sworn.
Mr.. Brent opened, contending that the aque-
duct prevented the free navigation or the Poto-
mac in the upper part OF Georgetown harb0r:
| which, by an act of Congress, extended to the
Chain Bridge. The defendants claimed the
right to obstruct the river by their aquaauct
| ander an act of Congress. That act must be
construed strictly, and the grantees OF the fran
chise, in carrying it out, were bound SO to use
| the franchise as to~injure the navigation OF the
river as little as possible. But they had not
| done So For the purpose of destroying the
| trade of Georgetown, her rival, Alexandra,
had built the aqueduct in the midst OF the
harbor of Georgetown, and thus from It's very
beginning the aoueduct had been nuisance.
But the books showed cases where an erection,
not nuisance when built, had become so in
the course of time. Thus slaughter house,
erected far from city, did not become null
sance until the extension of the city brought
its inhabitants in proximity to the butcherlng
pens. Now that the trade and commerce OF
| Georgetown had grown, the magnitude OF this
| nuisance became apparent and 1t was seen
that, by blocking the river, it had made waste
| of three miles OF the shore that otherwise
would be mart of busy trade.
Mr.. Brent continuing, showed the jury q
map of the river drawn by the coast survey,
and commended That it was evident that as the
parties erecting the Aqueduct had not COM
plied with the act OF Congress authorizing
such erection, they were not at liberty to plead
| such act when indicted for maintaining a
| nuisance.
Gen. Wells said he would set forth some of
| the material facts upon this question. This
case was an Indictment in the name Of the
United States against the Alexandria Canal
Company and the lessees, The first count OF
| the indictment charged that tno Canal Compa-
| ny was foreign corporation now he under
stood a foreign corporation to be one chartered
by foreign Sovereignty, but the charter Of the
| Alexandria Canal Company was granted
| by Congress-. oil,
Mr.. Brent said that the retrocession OF Alex
andria county to Virginia made the Canal
Company foreign corporation under the re-
cent act of Congress.
Gen. Wells was about to reply when the
Court said that it would adjourn to give room
for bar meeting ofrcspect to the memory OF
Hon. Thomas H. Ford.