Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-05-24T00:00:00

LAW REPORT. This was a special case, which the Court directed on an applica- tion for a nevv trial of an inquisition betweeni the Crown and Lord Yarborough, relative to salt marshes on the coast of LincoInshire, claimed by the Crown in right of its prerogatfve. The verdict on the traverse of the inquisition was foand for the defendant, who is lord of the manor of Northcotes. within which the recovered lands are situate. At the trial, it appeared that the sea had for many years receded at the rate of about three quartel-s of an inch per day, and at length left between 1,400 and l,4 acres, which were now fit for use aspasturelands, and of vcry considerable value. These lane5s were caimed by the Crown, as derelict of the sea, ard by the lord ef the manor as imperceptiblr formed by the deposit of alluvial matter at the dux and re'dux of the tide. The jury found for the defendant, and the Crown now sought to set the verdict aside. Mr. GoVLRURLN now argued the case on the part of the Crown. He rested the claim of h5s Majesty on the right which he had at common law to all land covered by the British seas, and which nght was not divested by the retiring of the waters. There were, indeed, three cases in which the right of the Crown did not accrue- where sOil wars merdty cast up by the sea; where the subject had lost in one place an equivalent for what he gained in another; and where theaccretion was so small as to come within the maxim de minirnis non carat lex. Neither of these exceptions would apply to the case in question; for here the accretion might be traced day by day, and if it were not within the priniple, the right of the Crown would be an emptv sound, unless when some violent con- vulsion threw up eartl where there had been sea. The merits of thc ctroh,i hnad Roe becn, onaaoesood ;b it. had been supposed thbt the Crown clained something which before belonged to the subject, whereas, it merely claimed that which had always been its own and which was not the less its own, when, by the course of nature, it became productive. iUr. S. Al. PUILLIPs, for the defendant, did not controvert the principles wlhich formed the basis of the argument for the Crown, but he contended that they did not apply to this case, where the jury had tound that the accretion was formed by the deposit ot stdtn and soil imperceptibly made. At what precise time did the right of' the Crown begin ? When did the accretion become so im- portant as to justify the exception to the maxim dc m7tinimis iwn cit- rnC lea 9 W'as it just or fair for the Crown to lie by for many years witnessieg the apprepriation of the soil, and theu suddenly to clainm it as its own ? AIr. Goui.nuRn shortly replied. The COURT, after observing that the case had been very ably ar- gued, deferred giving judgment till another day. CASES OF THE RETAIL aREwEnS. The argument of these cases, in wlhich the Attorney-Gereral ap- pears tbr the defendants, has been postponed on the suggestion of Mfr. Balland, that the bill now pending in Parliament will, if pass. ed in its present form, obviate the necessity for the discussion. COURT OF SING'S BENCH, WEST31INSTER. AMAY 22. THE KING V. LORDl YARBOROUGH.