Court Of King's Bench, We...
I Before the Luad ChierfJ2.,Slea A-- ..- r. . ,_ This was indictmiet against the parish of' MarylEbone, fbr not repairing a road, alleged to be a public high roadt, rsninine round the northern boundary of the Regent's-park. It appeared from the evidence, that the road in qucstion had been formed ui,der a parti- cularact of Parli:ument; ani the point whicl the jutr were called uponi to decide was. whether it had been so brmeed as to become a public road, repairable at the cxpense of the parish of Marylebonce in which it is situate. The worils of the act of Parliament rwere,that t'he road running along the westerr. boundary of the Regent's pzark should be continued and formtcd along the northtern botunAary, tntil it met with a road which was to be formed in continuation of G-reat Portland street, along the northern bountlary, and that the said road. when it was continued, fomned, and complejed, should be cot.sidered as a public road. The question in dispute, theretbre, waS, "had the road been continued, formedl, aDd completed," so ats to satisfy the meaning of the act of Parlianient ? To prove the affirmative of thtis issue, Mlr. SCARLETT, Who along wvith Mr. AR RAIIA11 was for the prosecution, called the per. son who had formed the road alluded to. I-le stated that he had laid twelve inches of gravel, screened in a forty-five i ire-skreen, upon the crown of this road, and nine inches en the sides of it ; that he had drained it at an expense ef 9001.; and that the Gonimissioners of' W'oods and IForests had paid hini his bill for the completion of it. To prove the negative of it, MIr. GASELEE,With whltom were Mr. .M11ANSIG and Alr. DURTNALL, called several surveyors, who swore that en a clay soil, suchl as is found in the Regetit's Park, twelve inches ot gra;el were not sufficient to fornm a road; that a harder substance than gravel ought to be plticed between the gravel and the c!av to prevent them mixing-that the road had never bcon properly drained.-and that it was totaUy incoitipetent to answer tbe uses of a road that was to be opened fbr the purposes of traffic. The LORD CHtIlF .Jrsricz, in summing up the case to the jury, tol( thnem that lie was clearly of opinion, that unless a road had been actuaUlv formed and completed, sa as to ineet reasonable wear and tear, tbey must find a verdict for the defendants. It would not be sufficient for the comniissioners appiointed to carrv the act for making these roatls into effect, merejy to set them out, they must see that they were fitted to aniswer all the ordinary purposes tbr wVhicil roads were intended. If they thought that the roads had been properly completedi, then they would nind a vernlict for the prosecution; but if not, their verdict tnust be for the defenrlants. The Jury retired for a few minutes, and then returned w ith a verdict of A'ot (i1ittr, for the defendants. STOCEDALE V. TrHUtLEY. Mr. PATTISON opened the pleadings, atd Mr. C. PHeILLIrS stated the plaintiff's case to the jury. It appeared that the plaintiff, wwho is a bookseller in Piccadilly, went to residc at Kensington in the year 1822. After lie had resided there about six months, the defendant took a farm of 200 acres adjacent to hiP lodse; and thiinkinr that the occupancy of it would be extreme- ly convenient to himsell, as occupier of the tarmn, endeavoured to drive the plaintiff'out of it by a most singular combination of an- noyances. Hle coimnenced by turning lis pigs into the fields, and i'n return they soon began torootup all the fences of Ilr. Stockdale's gardens. He fed his cattle in a yard which camne within a few feet ot Mr. Shocjktlale's dining-~rootn; and then drove Alr. Stockdale's fbmil ut of it, by cQlectingthefr dung into,rehaPind. ately uinder its window. He stopped is 'va , lagha,imd p~ tLaous drains on~ his pr,.. miso, and so rendered all Mr. Stockdale's waterclosets useles - lie neflected to rpair the gutters of h's cow-shed, and tihusallowed the water, whbich they ought to have carried off' to drop dowvnt and ruin several apricot-trees, wvhich Mlr.? Stockdale had planted against it. He piled up manure before IIr. Stockcale's gardten-gate, and so destroyed aU the fr2 nce of Mr. Stockodae's garden. He kiUed pigs, beat horses, blewroam and made all kinds of offensive noises at all hours of the night en, his own premitses, to the great disturbance of aU the inmates of Mr. Stockdale's. Besides these and various other kindsof annorances be drove a bull into the yard behind Alr. Stockdale's premises and therc gave him libertv to rove among his neighbour's cows, till Alr. Stoek dale's family Wkre obliged to give ulp the use of all the apartments in the back parts of the house. The consequence was, that tie plaintiff was obliged to remove his wife and family to town, and lost several lodgers whohad before resided with him. Ie now broughttl,ii action, not so much with a view of recovering damages as of obtain ing some respite from the attacks of the defendant; and in order to s.ow that he was sincere in that declaration, he now offered to refer' the w.vole matter in dispute to any mutual friend of the parties, or to any gentleman of the bar, whom the parties nmight nomsinate. If the defendant would not agree to that proposition, he trusted that thc Jury would give the plaintiff'such damnages as would prevent the defendant from recurring to such inndelicate measures of annoy. ance infur. Mir. SCARLET?, who was for the defendant, asked AMr. C. Phil. lipS Whether lie would allow the case to be referred to the steward of the gentleman to whom both the plaintiff and the defendant were .Mr. C. PHILLIPS replied in the negative, but again announced his wvillingness to refer it to any gentleman at the bar. I r. SCARLETT having refused. to accede to this proposition, Mr. PHILLIPS called witnesses who fully substantiated the case he had laid before the jury. MAr. St ARrETT addressed the jury upon the facts which had been elicited froni the p!aintiff's witrie4scs, contending that Ar. Stockdale had no right to counnlain of the annoyances which lie had suffered from the defendant's farmi-yard being placetd under the windows of his dining-room, as he must have anticipated them when he origi- nally took the house. WVith regard to tho injury which bad been (lone to the pl.sintiff'a fruit-trees by the n verdlowings oF the gutters to the defendant's cow-shed, he maintained that it had been occasioned by thle plaintiff's neglecting to repair them, which, on taking the hose, he had stipulated to do. As to the noises of which the plaintiff complained, lie argued that thev were no other than those which totok place in every f.rm-yard and further mlaintained that the plaintiff;would have av ided all the indecent spectacles whichl had given hi. X so much offence, if he had raised his fence a few feet higherl as, in poimt of fact, he v. s bound to do by his lease. On these accou'nt5 he contended that the plaintiff had nc pround of acion whiateverg T~he LORDn CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that as there were two parts of the plaintiff's case tto which na answer had even been at- Lempted.namel , that which referred to the indecencies of the bull, mnd that which referred to the noise made during the night on the p?cmises....ie plaintiffo was undoubtedly entitled to their verdict. N ominal damages would, perhaps, be considered satisfactory, in zase it were understood that thc nuisance should be abated. , Ir. C. Pitrl.trps immediatelv observed, that his client wrould still be contented with nominal damragest. Thecase then went to theutu:y, w;ho retuined a verdict for the plaiPtift_Das,:agea one shtIlng. COURT OF KiNW.'S BRNC.H- ---- W T1lE KIlXG V. TTIh 1r-<l - .