Court Of Exchequer, Thurs...
The Times, 1824-11-19T00:00:00

This was an action for a nuisance. The parties resided at Soatlt.. ampton. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, who was a car_ tier, was in the habit of committing a nuisance, by raising a stench from the dressing of leather ; but the principal ground of complaint was, that the defendant had built two houses, which prevented the gun fronm shining on the plaintiff's garden, and ripermg the fruits as it was wont befere the houser were built. The actirn WaS ap - pointed to be tried atthelastWinchesterassizes,butthe partiesagreed to refer the matter to arbitration, and AIr. Damnpicr was the arbi- trator selected. Mr. Dampier made an award, in which he declared that the defendant had committed no nuisance; but added, rhat the awrard might be set aside, and a verdict entered for the plain- till', with 20s. COSts, if, upon the question being brought before the Jourt, it should be of opinion that a nuiataee did exiSt. The plaintiff had obtained a rule to show vcuse why the award should not be set asitde;* and this day Air. Sergeant IVILDE appeared on behalfof the defendant, to shov cause. le saDid he wrould take en objection in rimine on a point of form, and would nOt enter into the merits of the cme until that should be disposed of. He objected that the plaintiffhad not obtained his rule in proper timae. It was well known that a mo- tioa to set aside a verdict must be made within the four first days of term. Precisely the amre rule applied to awards made by arbiEra. tors. To prove that, it was only necessary to refer the Court to the case of "gorrowdale and lilatchinson," in 3d Bosanquet and Puller, in which the Judges decided that a mnotion to set aside anawardumnst be made within the first four days of Term. The plaintiff in the present case had not obtaincd his rule till the eighth day of Term. Air. JoNEs, for the plaintiff, contended that the present award differed from awards in general, because the arbitrator bad dedded fir d '-f- t onb' -ditidonaly *and seemed to havc wished to hjp t. obimon of the Cout on t ,e s b might be made t the Curt, to sCt aside an award of cbe conditional n at ure whih the learned co~nicl haddescribed. Mr. JOYES said till the end of Tenn. IMr. Baron HttLLoe observed, that the learned counsel bad no law to support him.i. No distinction ,zs made with respect to the nature of awardr. MAr. JoNEs concluded b expressing his re t that the defen. dlalt had resorted to technical objecin hI, ritsucceeded, would leave the parties exposed to future litigation. All r. Baron GARIt now.-Do not be afraid. We shall not have an- other action about unripe currants. Mir. MAANNNr, fbr the plaintiff, obserred, that his Lordship did not seem to be aware of the real facta of the case. *'The que.tion was, not whether the plaintiff should baveripecurrants, but whether he should be driven out ot, Southampton. Mr. Sergeant WILDE fet at necessary to set the Court right on the point which had been alluded to. It had appeared oa the inves- tigation wbich had taken place, that the plaintirT was a singular old gentleman, who could not bear to see or be seen in bis garden. That was the real cause of the action. - Air. Baron GXAHAar, Mr. Baron GAeLao`,W d Mir. Baron FIULLOCE, severally decided that the plaintiff's rule must be die. charged, on the authority of the case reported in Bosanquec and COURT OF EXCHEQUER, TauttsDAY, Nov. IL LAW SIDfE. KARTLEY V. VFILKES.