Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

in the park; and they met accordingly. The defendant asked the witness to proceed with him to Bath, as Seymour, who was there, had persuaded Charlotte to go there with him: both the gentlemen promised to take care of the witness and Charlotte as long as they lived. The witness appointed to meet him next day in Burlington-gardens; but, being wet, they could not go. The defendant, in consequence, wrote another letter requesting the witness to leave her home with Charlotte the following day they did so between 3 and 4 o'clock on Tuesday afternoon, and met the defendant and Seymour in Burlington-gardens. After some persuasion they both consented to go to Bath with the defendant and Seymour, but for that night it was agreed they were to sleep at the house of a friend. They accordingly walked to a house of ill fame in Chandos-street, and the witness there wrote a note to her sister to inform her that they were many miles distant with two gentlemen. Seymour went away to dine out, and the witness, her sister Charlotte, and Charlton, dined together at the Key, about nine at night: Seymour returned at about eleven o'clock, and they afterwards retired to bed in separate apartments, the witness' with Charlton, and Charlotte with Şeymour. Next morning they met at breakfast; the two gentlemen went out, and did not return until the evening: the defendant, and Mr. Seymour, who was in the guards, excused themselves from leaving town for Bath, as the latter could not obtain leave from the Duke of York to be absent for an

hour from duty. It was then proposed that the witness should go into the country with Charlton, while Charlotte remained in town with Capt. Seymour; but it was finally arranged that the witness and her sister should live together in Seymour-place, with the Captain, while Charlton went out of town, promising to return in a week or ten days. The witness wrote to Mr. Charlton, and in consequence received the two let ters read by the Attorney-General, which, by consent, were directed to Mrs. Hamilton, the name the witness was to assume. They remained in the lodgings three or four months, but Mr. Seymour continued his visits to Charlotte only for three weeks. Charlton gave the witness 101. the first evening at the Key, and 51. more the next morning, both sums to buy linen for the journey to Bath; and 101. were sent when they were in Seymour-place. At the end of three or four months the witness and her sister returned to their mother, who was obliged to pay 171. to the woman of the house where they had lodged.

On her cross-examination by Mr. Topping, the witness said that the first time they were spoken to by the defendant, they had also been addressed by two other gentlemen in a tilbury, but the witness and her sister did not reply to them. When they went to Berkeley-street to drink tea, they took a walk round by St. James'sstreet, as they were too early. Captain Seymour had several times walked with her sister Charlotte before the witness became acquainted with the defendant. Before that time, the witness and

her

her sister had not been much in the habit of walking out.

To questions from Lord Ellenborough, she said,. that she had no reason to believe that the Key, in Chandos-street, was a house of ill fame before she went out with her sister to buy linen for the journey to Bath. They only saw one man there, and no beds were ordered; they were shown into a sitting-room, and she thought that the brothel was a family hotel.

Mr. Topping addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant, pressing all the topics in his favour allowed by the case, and particularly the facility with which he had gained the favour of the lady.

After a short charge from Lord Ellenborough, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages 5001.

NUISANCE AND TRESPASS.

The King v. Tinkler and Mount ford. This was an inquiry which took place before a special Bench of Magistrates assembled at Guildford on Saturday last, Lord Middleton in the chair, relative to the seizure of 16,576lbs. of gunpowder, at the Chilwell powder-mills, of which mills the defendants are proprietors, on the 8th and 9th instant. The inquiry was one of great interest and importance to the town of Guildford, and its neighbourhood; and more especially to those persons residing in the vicinity of Messrs. Tinkler and Mountford's works, and occupied the Magistrates during the whole of Saturday and Monday last. The powder, when seized by the constables employed under

the information, was placed by them in a hop-kiln, belonging to a gentleman named Ryde, in the neighbourhood, where it remained from the time the seizure was made, under the care of a trusty guard, to await the decision of the magistrates. Mr. Cowley and Mr. Beerings now appeared as counsel, in support of the information, and Mr. Nolan, for the defendants. The information, which was founded on the act of the 12th year of the King, entitled "an act for regulating the making, keeping, and carrying of gunpowder by the makers thereof," (the 7th section of which provides that no greater quantity of gunpowder in a finished state, or in a state of process, shall be kept in any gunpowdermill, or places belonging or adjoining thereto, at any one time, than is necessary for carrying on the said works; and that any excess above such necessary quantity shall be liable to seizure and forfeiture, and the proprietor of such mills be further liable to a penalty of 2s. per lb. upon every lb. of powder so forfeited,) having been read, and and which information charged the defendants with having the abovementioned quantity of powder, namely 16,576lbs.. in their works, contrary to the regulations of the act, unlawfully, and to the imminent danger, hazard, and peril of the neighbourhood; and the defendants having pleaded not guilty to the charge,

Mr. Cowley proceeded to address the Bench in support of the information, After adverting to the importance of the question which he had now to submit to the consideration of the Bench, one involving nothing less in it

[ocr errors][merged small]

than the safety of the property and even the lives of the inhabitants of the town of Guildford and its neighbourhood, observed, that, looking at the amount of powder seized, he was persuaded he should have but little difficulty in showing to the Bench that what had been called the nervous fears of the complainants on this occasion, was at least not fears without foundation. As little difficulty should he have in showing that for a length of time past, these gentlemen, the defendants, had, from a love of lucre, been carry ing on their trade, negligententirely negligent-of the safety of their neighbours and of the public, and in open defiance of the provisions of the Act of Parliament upon which the present in formation was founded, and on the 7th section of which he should on this occasion principally rely. The manufacture of powder was not only a necessary one, but a politic one and further, the Legislature had made it a legal one. At the same time, aware of the dangerous nature of it, they had surrounded it with precautions; and the act in question, the 12th of the King, was in fact a precautionary act. Notwithstanding all the precautions which could be taken, however, explosions would And in the frequently occur. manufactory of the defendants, two such events had occurred within the last five years. The object of the present act was to render these unavoidable accidents as little dangerous as possible. To effect this object, one of its provisions was, that attached to every powder manufactory there should be a magazine, or store

house, in which to deposit the powder as fast as finished, there to remain till called for by the

consumer.

A further provision

of the act was, that there should be buildings of a certain description and construction, called charge-houses, to which the powder, whilst in the different states of should be received, so process, that not more than 40lbs. of finished powder should be in any building where there was machinery at one time. This was intended to prevent the explosion of a large quantity. These were some of the provisions of this act. He understood it was to-day to be contended, that the Chilworth mills were ancient mills, erected long before the passing of this act, and not liable to its regulations. He (Mr. Cowley) must deny that position. He had looked over the various acts of parliament on the subject, and he certainly found exceptions in favour of some private mills in Sussex, mentioned by name, and exemp tions relative to his Majesty's works, but in none did he find any mention made of the Chilworth-mills; but allowing it had been so, none of the mills in question were exempted from having a magazine. Yet the defendants had been going on for years without one: and, if suffered to go on, must still do so without that necessary safeguard for the public. They would never be allow ed to erect a magazine, because they were in a situation where they ought not to have one. For this reason they carried on their business without one, hiding their powder in holes and corners; 10 that instead of having only 40 or

[ocr errors]

50lbs. of powder in a place liable to explosion, they had accumulated 16,000lbs. which might all explode in an instant, and spread ruin and destruction around. The charge against the defendants now was, for having this accumulation of powder stowed in improper places. The 16,576lbs. had been taken away, and he had now to contend was forfeited. Besides this quantity, the seizing officer left behind him 1600lbs. of finished powder, which he ought also to have taken, as well as a quantity in process in every part of the works, amounting to several cwt.; all of which, he submitted, was, strictly speaking, forfeited, had they taken any account of it. The quantity seized and brought away, he should be able to show, by contradictory evidence, was an excess above that allowed by act of Parliament. He now had to ask of the Bench the forfeiture of it, and the penalty of 2s. per lb. upon it. He should prove, that excessive quantities of finished powder, which should have been deposited no where but in a magazine, were found in places the most dangerous and exposed, in the midst of machinery in the corning-house, dusting-house, drying-house, and even in a building within a few feet of the stoveplaces, where none but the small quantity immediately in process should be deposited.

After the examination of witnesses, and hearing the pleadings on both sides, the Court retired for about 10 minutes, when they returned, and Lord Middleton declared their opinion to be, that 7,616lbs. of the powder were forfeited; and upon which quantity VOL. LVIII.

the defendants were also liable to a penalty, amounting to a further sum of 7601. 12s. The 7,616lbs. they were to select from the finished powder, and the remainder seized was to be returned.

Lancaster Assizes, Sept. 5.Thompson v. Harris.—This was an action to abate a nuisance.

Mr. Scarlet stated the case. The plaintiff is a cheesemonger, and the defendant a farrier, in the town of Preston. A new street was lately built in that town, called Lune-street, composed of respectable houses, and inhabited by respectable people. Among these were a clergyman, an attorney, the plaintiff, and several other individuals of wealth and consideration in the place. The defendant likewise purchased a portion of the ground in the vicinity of this street, and built upon it, as he had a right to do. He built first a small house for keeping a cow, about 8 yards from the back court of the plaintiff. To this erection the plaintiff could have no possible objection, and he made none; but he was rather surprised when in April last he saw a chimney rising over this cow-house, and still more surprised and annoyed when smoke began to issue from it, and hammers to play within it; in short, when he saw the cowhouse converted into a smithy, involving his premises in smoke and stunning his family with noise. Nothing could be conceived a greater annoyance than the incessant din of this forge, or the volumes of smoke that issue from it, blackening every thing around it, and forcing the plaintiff to have the linen exposed to dry in his

T

yard

sible to their deafening roar, but the plaintiff in the former case, as strangers in the latter, must feel the annoyance intolerable. Till it could be proved that sinoke, noise, and dust, in their most offensive degrees, and brought as near as possible to a man's

long must a smithy situate like the one in question be declared a nuisance, and entitle the plaintiff to a verdict. He asked no damages-he merely asked a verdict, to remove the annoyance of which he so justly complained.

yard, often to be washed over again, and his windows shut when he would choose to have them open. There could be no doubt that the law would consider such a building so placed and so used as a nuisance. Every man has a right to enjoy his own property, but he must use it with a refer-dwelling, were not a nuisance, so ence to the rights of others. So ciety could not exist without such a prínciple. Society is held together in a sort of compromise of mutual restraint and compensation. If a man, in the exercise of his rights of property, builds his house and establishes himself in a particular situation, no other man has a right to destroy his comforts, or to molest his possession, by bringing an offensive trade into his immediate neighbourhood. If, on the other hand, the offensive trade is established first, no man has a right to order its removal. The only question in law is the priority of establishment; and it either abates the nuisance, or permits its continuance according to this principle. The law does not consult a man's whims, or caprices, or imaginary wants; but it allows po invasion of his real substantial comforts, nor any exercise of the rights of property, however just in other respects, that diminishes them. There could be no doubt from the evidence he would produce that the plaintiff was seriously aggrieved: several of the other inhabitants of the street likewise felt the injury as their own. The defendant, accustomed to such noises, might not be so sensible of the disturbance they give, as those who reside near the falls of Niagara are said not to be at all sen

The learned Counsel then call ed several witnesses to prove the nuisance, both of the plaintiff's own family and from among his neighbours. His servant deposed, that the clothes hung out to dry in the yard were often so covered with smoke and dust that it was necessary to wash them over again, and that she was frequently obliged to shut the windows to exclude such offensive annoyances. She stated farther, that the noise was intolerable, and often made the floor and windows shake. Several of Mr. Thompson's neighbours confirmed this statement, and added their own complaints to his.

Mr. Williams, for the defendant, denied that this smithy could be termed in law a nuisance. He would bring witnesses to prove that they did not consider it as a nuisance; that the noise was by no means what it was represented to be, and that fewer coals, coals of a better quality, and yielding less smoke," were burnt in this smithy than on any kitchen or parlour fire of the neighbourhood. This insignificant smithy had been dignified with the name of forge,

and

« AnteriorContinuar »