the Jury. He observed, that the question was one of the most vital importance, not alone to the individuals who were experimentally engaged therein, and to the public generally, but more particularly to that class of society, whose fate it was to reside in the precincts of the manufactory which was now so justly preferred to the consideration of the court as a common nuisance and public offence. The utility of the gas lights none would have the hardihood to deny-its beauty and brilliancy were equally apparent. The lucrative advantages derived from its establishment were, no doubt, very considerable; yet, under all these circumstances, it was highly necessary that the comfort, the health, and the lives of their fellow-creatures were not to be endangered. The gas manufactory of the defendants was first established in Fetter-lane. There it was conducted, as now, by a joint-stock company; but the inhabitants of that district finding it necessary to have the establishment indicted as a nuisance, the proprietors removed their manufactory to Dorsetstreet, where it was commenced upon a more extensive scale. Here the process became equally offensive, and in proportion as the system enlarged, so the effects became more obnoxious and dangerous. It appeared, that in the present manufactory there were four retorts of considerable size. Beneath these there were fires constantly burning, the vapour from which was conducted by several iron tubes into a globular vessel, called a Gasometer. The smell which issued from this part

of the manufactory was of a most offensive nature. There was also a process of coke, which likewise produced an insufferable stench by means of tubes, which carried off the effluvia, and was conducted to the river Thames. This was not alone offensive to the inhabitants and passengers, but even to the bargemen upon the river, in that quarter. Complaints of the evil were made on all sides, and while, in some instances, the most shameful inattention was manifested; in others, the injured applicants were received in a cavalier sort of way: and although promises had been made of remedying the nuisance so bitterly felt, still nothing had been effectually done to remove it, and it remained in all its pernicious force.

An indictment, however, being preferred in May last, by the inhabitants of the district, the defendants, it was understood, had, at a considerable expense, adopted experiments by way of improvement. These, however, had not the desired effect, and the nuisance still existed in a minor degree, but still with such contagious effects, that the comfort, the health, and the lives of the inhabitants, were exposed continually to danger. Under these circumstances, he was convinced the court would feel it their duty to pronounce a verdict of condemnation upon the party, and if the latter could not succeed in so far improving their manufactory, as to obviate the evil in question, they must then abandon their scheme altogether, however lucrative to themselves, or however beneficial to an admiring public, with whom the lives, the safety,

and

and convenience of a respectable part of the community was not to be compared.

After several witnesses had been examined, Mr. Gurney was proceeding to call others, when Mr. Pooley, on the part of the defendant, rose, and observed, that after hearing such a body of evidence from the most respectable individuals, and which he was not at all prepared to controvert, it would be at once disrespectful, and a waste of time to the court, to enter into a defence, and submitted that a verdict must be recorded against his clients. He would, however, beg leave to observe that the defendant, Mr. Sparrow, had little or nothing to do with the concern in question until the middle of March last, and that the evil complained of was rather before than after that period. This gentleman had since then manifested the most anxious desire to remove every ground of complaint, and had gone to a most enormous expense, in adapting plans for that purpose. Some of these had succeeded, but for those other improvements that were meditated, he contended there had not been time. In submitting also on the present occasion to a verdict of conviction, he promised, that the evil complained of should be most effectually removed within a given time, and trusted that the court would forego judgment upon the party until, at least, the Sessions in January next. Mr. Knight as well as Mr. Sparrow, should plead to the conviction, and both gentlemen would adopt every means which art and money could effect in obviating the nuisance. This

was an object as dear to themselves as their existence, inasmuch as the establishment promised to be one of the most lucrative nature. To obviate any serious ground of opposition to their pursuit, must be, therefore, an object of vital interest.

Mr. Gurney, on the part of the inhabitants who had preferred the indictment, consented that the judgment of the defendant might be respited until January next, when, if the nuisance was not removed, he would certainly pray the sentence of the court upon them. He had no hope, however, that they would be enabled to effect the promised improvement; for the apertures from which issued the foul air, the extensive fires, and the consequent bodies of smoke, were connected with the very nature of the establishment itself.

The Recorder shortly addressed the Jury, and observed, that it only remained for them to pronounce their verdict, the justice of which they would be satisfied with when he read to them the opinion of Lord Mansfield upon the question of a nuisance. This was delivered in the case of two men who had commenced a chemical process in Whitechapel, the effects of which had caused noxious vapours and smells. On that occasion his Lordship held, that it was not actually necessary that the nuisance be unwholesome, or tending to indisposition; it was quite sufficient to prove, that it rendered the life of any individual or family uncomfortable

The defendants were then found Guilty, their recognizances ordered to be respited, and them

Lancaster Assizes.

Before Mr. Baron Richards and a Special Jury.-Holt v. Meddowcroft. This was an action for diverting the water of a river called the New Roach. The plaintiff and his partners were the proprietors of several fulling and carding mills, and it was stated that they had been for upwards of 40 years in the exclusive employment of that portion of the waters of the river which flowed to their mills, and for the purpose of appropriating the waters, had erected a wear of the proper standard height. The defendant, a professional gentleman of eminence, became, by the death of a relation, possessed of a corn mill, which was situated near the plaintiff's mill. The defendant's mill was fed by a scanty stream, called Cathead Brook, but of so inefficient power, that the mill could not be worked above one day in a week. The consequence of this was, the defendant could with difficulty procure a tenant for his mill, and if he found one, he was obliged to let it at very low rates. He therefore endeavoured to add to the power of the mill, and this he effected by cutting a sluice from the river to his own mill. By doing so, he greatly improved his mill, and rendered it of considerable annual value; but it was soon found that in proportion as the sluice added to the power of the defendant's, it deteriorated those of the plaintiff's, and made it impossible for the wheels, for want of water, to work the same quantity of machinery they had done before. Such was the na

action was brought. The cause extended to a very great length, owing to the number of witnesses examined on both sides. On the part of the plaintiffs it was proved that their mills were frequently unable to work at their usual speed, while the water was running flush down the defendant's sluice. On the other hand, it was contended by the defendant's counsel, that his client had done no more than he was by law entitled to do. He admitted that the person who became the first occupant of the waters of a river, by erecting a wear, had a right to the enjoyment of what he had so appropriated without interruption; but he was entitled to no more, and if it was observed that he had more than he wanted, and a part of the water ran over his wear to waste, in that case his neighbour had a right to take the overplus for his own use. This, he contended, was all that the defendant had done. He had so constructed his sluice above the level of the plaintiff's wear, that the water would not enter it, till after it had flowed a certain depth over the plaintiff's wear. peared, however, by the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses, that the greater the body of water was that flowed to waste over a wear, the heavier was the pressure upon the wheel, and of course the more facility was given to all the internal operations of the machinery. Of this opinion were the jury, and they accordingly returned their verdict in favour of the plaintiff. The question was considered of very considerable importance to persons interested

It ap

and

in this species of property; and the defendant's counsel intimated his intention of bringing the subject before the Court of King's Bench.

Lord Le Despencer v. Eveleigh, Clerk.-This was an issue directed by the Court of Exchequer to try whether certain woodlands belonging to the plaintiff were titheable; and secondly, whether the locus in quo was within the district, called the Weald of Kent. The cause, from the amount of property which depended upon its result, excited a very considerable degree of interest. The main question was, as to the boundary that divided the Wealds of Kent, Upon this depended whether the plaintiff's property was or was not tithe free; for by an ancient and immemorial custom the Wealds of Kent are exempt from tythe. It was therefore the object of the plaintiff to shew that his estate was within the boundary line, and with this view, he contended, that the road known as the Pilgrims'-road, was the true and exact boundary line. This road passed along the range of white chalk hills that run from West Peckham by Maidstone, and on to the eastern parts of the county. As a proof that this was the boundary, the Solicitor General said he should prove that all the lands south of this line were tithe free, and he should also prove that they were snbject to an ancient custom, called Land Peerage, in virtue of which the trees on the waste were not the property of the Lord of the Manor, but of the tenants nearest to them, A vast number

He

of witnesses were examined, who clearly deposed to the Pilgrims road being the boundary line, and to the lands south of that line being tithe free. Earl Stanhope stated his opinion to that effect in the most positive manner. spoke of it as a circumstance which tradition verified—he said his father had assured him the Pilgrims'-road was the boundary, and that no tithe was paid within it. The case consequently, on the part of the plaintiff, appeared to have been completely made out. On the part of the defendant it was contended by Mr. Serjeant Best, that the Pilgrims'road and chalk hills did not form the boundary, but that the boundary of the Kent wealds was the Red-hills. He said he should prove that tithe was paid within the line described by the plaintiff as the boundary, and if he did so, there would be an end of the plaintiff's case. He accordingly produced as many witnesses as the plaintiff, all of whom as positively and distinctly stated that the Red-hills were the boundary. It was also proved, that nearly all the parishes within the district, which the plaintiff said was part of the weald, paid tithe 'to the clergymen. Endowments, terriers, and a variety of ancient documents, shewed the whole district to be titheable. It followed, that the foundation of the plaintiff's case was taken away, and the jury, after a trial of ten hours, without suffering the learned Judge to sum up the evidence, returned a verdict for the defendant, by which the right of the clergy to tithes, within a wide district, is completely established.

Before

Before the Lord Chancellor. Cholmondeley (Earl of) v. Clinton (Lord)-Whether an attorney or solicitor employed for one of the parties in a cause, and discharging himself from being so employed, can legally become the solicitor or attorney of the other party in the same cause? This question, so important not only to solicitors and attornies, but to every branch of the profession of the law, and to the public, now remains for decision in the Court ..of Chancery. It was brought -forward upon motion in the above cause, under the following state of facts, being all that appeared to the Lord Chancellor necessary to be attended to for the decision of the general question. Messrs. Seymour and Montriou, or some such name, partners, were employed as the solicitors for the defendant, Lord Clinton. In September last, they agreed to dissolve the partnership; and one of the conditions in the contract of dissolution was, that Mr. Seymour alone was to remain Lord Clinton's solicitor, to which stipulation Lord Clinton assented. Lord Cholmondeley afterwards appointed Mr. Montriou his solicitor in this cause, and that appointment, after consulting several legal friends, Mr. M. thought himself justified in accepting. The motion on the part of Lord Clinton, or Mr. Seymour, or both, was that the court should restrain Lord Cholmondeley from appoint ing Mr. Montriou, and Mr. Montriou from accepting the appointment, or acting for Ld. Cholmondes ley in this cause; and also that Mr. M. might be restrained from communicating to Lord Cholmondeley VOL. LVII.

such material facts as had come to his knowledge, while he was solicitor for the defendant, Lord Clinton. It appeared that, while the partnership subsisted, Mr. Seymour alone had been the confidential solicitor of Lord Clinton; and that Mr. Montriou had, according to his own affidavit, been concerned merely in the open ma! nagement of the cause, or public part of it, and that he knew nothing of a secret nature to communicate to Lord Cholmondeley; and Sir A. Pigott stated, that Mr. M. was perfectly ready to deny, in the most positive terms, on oath, that he was the person who had given Lord Cholmondeley the anonymous information which had led him to institute this suit in behalf of himself and Mrs. Damer; and it was admitted on all hands, that for any thing that then appeared, Mr. M. might have honestly thought he was justified in accepting the appointment, though it was insisted that he was in possession of confidential information.

In the course of the argument in support of the motion, it was asked, speaking to the general question, whether it was proper to place the suitors of the court in such a situation that their solici

tors might, in the middle of a cause, discharge themselves, and take the opposite side in the same cause, in opposition to the general principles that solicitors were bound to keep the secrets of their clients? The court, dealing with its own officers, had clearly jurisdiction to order in terms of the motion; and even if the right were out of the question, a sense of propriety ought to prevent

X

Lord