Court Of Common Pleas, Sa...
The Times, 1824-06-14T00:00:00

(SiUingi at Weminsuter before the L,ORD LiIE; J Epj IwE anaf Svccial Jurtr. ). being disturbed in the occupation and enjoytoent of his hoanc by a steam-engine erected by thedefendantcwho had pleaded" nolguflt." Air. Sergeant VANGHAN, who, with the assistance of Mr. RAlsfl conducted the laintiff's case, stated, that tbi was an action wbicit his Grace the Duke of Nortlrnnberland had been compelled t. bring against the defendant, in order to suppress, by the verdict of a jury, a nuisance by which his enjoyment of the noble mansion he posess. ed. was disturbed. The noble Duke and his ancestors had iongen. joyed tbis mansion, and as his enjoyment was now for the first dme disturbed, he had found it necessary to seek a remedy by action.. It would be shown on this inquiry, that continued volumes of offensve smoke were eontinuaUy issuing from the defendant'a chimney; that in consequence, the Duke's premises were covered with soot; and. that, by the working of the engine, the well baad repeatedly been drained of itsr water, so asnot to leave a ssufficlency tr the supply of the family. The defendant as a printer rresiding close to the premises of the nobleIDuke- and ihe engine ime b erected wasun. doubtedly DUt Up for the purpose of carrying ons his trade ;t. rdll, as a llritish JTury would not gie their verdict 20t a man mnere- 1y because he was wealthy and noble, so, on the other hand, thef would not think him the less entitled to it on that account. It was, undoubtedly, a favourable position, that a man: might do what he pleased with his own property; and that wA strilctly trar,, provided one qualiEication was sidded-namely, that in suitDSn isowmm pleasure or convenience, he did not trespass on the comfort or con. venience of other,. The first time that this nuiance had bIzen ob. serred ws3 in September last when the famiLy were out of town, anii when one of the neble Duel's establishment was disturbed in hf bed by the active opration of the steam-engine, the boiler of whick came in contact with the party-wall of the mansion. The noise had been not inappropriately compared to a thrashing maehine, to dis- tant thunder, or the rumbling of wkgnone. It sometimes commenced at eight in ths evening, and continued all night The blacka some- times fell in such quatitiee as to cover the pa-ement and enable- any perntow rite hie name. He should observe here, that unques. tionably the defentant had, i some degree, lessened the nuisance, by raisinglhis chimnies, and that bewas said now to use coke instead o?' coal. Stil, however, coal mightagain be r*torted to, and thequestion- was,whether the Dakeof Northumberland, wko had laid out nearly 100,090L in repairing andbeautifyingthermandion, and hademployed greatnumbersof Englishartisansinthework, shouldnowbe driven fromit, or continue roinBhabititafter al his comfertandenjoymenthad heend.stroyed. Tkecommondefence, that theplaintifhadcometothq nuieance,coaldnotbesetupin thiscase,as theprintif ndiiantatort had enjoyed the mansion for a period of mere than 200 years, and be-, forethat time it had been possessed bythe Earl of Northampton. Ia face, the jui must know that it had formerly stood tione in the midst of -fiedd, when London had not as vet extended. to its preseas -7 gigantic size He should prove these facts, axnd czalon the jury for a verdict, though he should not ask for heavy danages; as the ob- ject of tle plainttid was not pecuniary compensation, but the undiz. surbed and commodious enjoyment of his mansion. Several witnesses who were acquainted with the mantioa of the noble plaintiff bore testimony to the annoyance the -steam-cngine oc- casioned. The gardener was called, and he said the blacks fell in ghowers, like a shbw er of nzwo; and bad he not actively employed his galden- engine, the plants would have been burnt up. r. Jonathan Parkins, clerk of the works at Northumberland- house, sid, that upwards of 100,0001. had been expended by hisi Grmce in erections and embellishmentA within the last few years. Had found the purmps dry; and upDoninquiry leamt that the defend- ant had got a steanmengine. He went to the defendant's and found. that a deeper well than the Duke's had been sunk by Aim, which drcw the water from theDulte's-well He hadno doubt of this fact, because the Duke's pump wasdry of a Tuesday morning after tie- defendant's engine had been workipg all the AMonday night. He was. the person who brekea hole through tbe Duke's Wall, which divides- thekuke's premises from the engine-house of the defendant. The steameaginne; of the defendant was adjoining the outside of the wall. Some time aRter the wal was petforated, t1e boiler of the defendant boiled over, and the water flowed through the hole Into the Duke's stables. The ATToREy-GEsrNCRA..-You ibould not hsve made the hole. Cross-xammied by the ATTon.HET.GKi(lRAL_The kitchen chimnies of the Duke are within ten feet of the defendant's premises, aad the smcke from them when the wind Is in that direction, blo** the blacks against the defendat's wtindows, wherehis sheetgpsmo are hung to ry. The Duke's wall Is seven feet six inches hlg er than the defendant's premises The AJToRx-Y.G1:ERAL.-Ye8, and bhuts enthis llgkt. itV. Parsns, tnsineer, in Oetober last had his attentihn called to the defendants engine and saw smolke issuing at varlous times, from his chinmay in thici& volumes, and heard a noise caused by the friction in the workldng of the enginte He had observed a deficicner of water in the Duke swell when the engine was at work. An argument Was raised upon the queetion of the Duke's exclu- ave right o the water, nd the legality of the defendant deprivint him of part of It, by drawing it from the spring witl hIls steama en me.- re L*zD CrilZp J u6SICc said, thatt unles the Duke coula showr that he had any grant or prescriptive right to the use of this. water, it was evidentthe defendant had as mnuch right to dig *.well. onhisground as the Dake hid to digone on his Other cridence being called onthepartof the plaintiff, a prposi- tien was made to refer the cause, which was objected to. The ATTo0rnY-GEttERtAL thea addresed the juryr, and said he should cal evidence to show that the sound ot the enginie could not be heard In Northumnberiand-house, and that the moke arising from the chimnies in the noble Duke's man- sion. was much greater thaR was caused by the defeniant's engine He should prove that the defendant had bmrnt coke fo,the lathrmonth, and -no amoke a=e above-he chimey- - The noise heard wa the Duke's premises was stated to be continu- ous, which was easily accoatated for, as the mansion-wa stuate at the corner of three of the largest thoroughfares in London and the continuous noise was caused by the csrrisget p2ssng; anA this fact put him in mind of an anecdote whicnt no would. reiate to lue jury', as it bore on this cae An Irishman came to London. and parted with his Cockney cousin at tbe corner of Northumberlaud House, intending to go up St. Martln's.lane; his cousin went iato the dit., mLud returned a few hours after to go to his dinner,and found his Irish relation where hebad parted with him. "KElowis it you areere " cries he, "Oh, bv " cries the Irishman, "I have not betn able tocros the road foir coaches since you left ne." (Laughter.) He Vs - Attorney.Gener4) proceeded to commeat upon the eviaencej , vi4 azid hc shnould call writnesses to disprove it. AttIre mgestion of tbe Courr, a reference was agun proposed; aid, ?indl-, It was agreed to take a verdict f3r the plaiWtiff,_-D mages, 1,t0L, subject to the reference of Mr. dlwyn. COUItT OF COMMON PLEAS. f5ATuRDAr, JUNE 12. tH llE DUKE OF7 ORTIHUMBERLA1 V. CLOWES. _ lo