and the noise of this forge had been talked of as if Vulcan and his swarthy brothers incessantly plied their thundering hammers within it; but it would surprise the jury, when he showed them that all this mighty noise was produced, not by a congregation of giants, but by the nerveless arm of a boy of 14. When the noise and the smoke of this little smithy were made the subject of complaint, it was forgotten that there were in the small town of Preston, and within 800 yards of the plaintiff's house, no less than nine steam engines, and four foundries, which really did send forth volumes of sound and smoke that were formidable and annoying. These, indeed, might with some propriety be declared nuisances: but it was difficult to describe what a nuisance was in law, or to determine that degree of discomfort which amounted to one. Much would depend upon what people considered as the essentials of their comfort or enjoyments. Some thought a fine prospect necessary to their enjoyments; and according to them it would be a nuisance to cut down a tree in your park that added to the beauty of their landscape, or to build a wall that obstructed in the least their view; some would declare a school a nuisance, because it had noisy boys; others a joiner's shop; others a steam-engine, and so on. But when people determine to live in towns, they must submit to the inconvenience of towns; they are not to expect, amid the noise and smoke and dust of a manufacturing place, the same quietness and retirement as in the country; they must not

hope to enjoy in Manchester or Preston the same good air as on the site of Lancaster-castle or the top of Skiddaw. The learned counsel called several witnesses for the defendant, with the design of showing that the smithy was not considered as a nuisancethat the noise was not distressing

that fewer coals, and coals of a better quality, were burnt in it than in many private housesthat the plaintiff himself did not consider it as a grievance necessary to be remedied by law, till the defendant had refused to oblige him by allowing him to fix his joists in defendant's wall-and that the foundries and steam-engines of the town were nuisances which, if the plaintiff allowed, took away all ground of complaint against this trifling smithy. It appeared much in favour of the plaintiff that all the witnesses called to disprove the offensive nature of the smoke and noise lived at a greater distance from the smithy than himself, or those whose evidence he adduced in his support.

The learned Judge, in addressing the jury, and summing up the evidence, explained to them fully the state of the law respecting nuisances. It proceeded upon this principle-that no man in the exercise of his own rights of property was entitled to endanger the security or diminish the enjoyment of his neighbour in the lawful use of his. A nuisance in law was not what affected the possession and enjoyment of property through the medium of a man's whims, caprices, fancies, or imaginary wants, but what destroyed or diminished his real, rational, and substantial comforts, such as bringing

T2

bringing offensive trades into his neighbourhood, the introduction of offensive smells, dust, or noise. Nor was it to be considered how much a man could endure without injury to health, but how much he could tolerate without inconvenience, and that at all seasons, whether in health or sickness, whether feeble or robust. Now, there could be no doubt that the incessant din and pitchy smoke of a smithy must be a nuisance to persons not accustomed to them, and so situated as the present seemed to be with respect to the plaintiff. Nor was it any answer to this, that the plaintiff endured the annoyance of steamengines and foundries before. The nearest of them seemed to be at the distance of 400 yards, while this smithy was as near as eight: but even allowing that they were nearer, the defendant had no right to add to causes of disturbance already existing. Because a man endures one inconvenience without complaining, no right can be established on the ground of his patience or forbearance to aggravate it, or to add another. The question for the consideration of the jury therefore was, what according to the evidence was the state of the facts-was this smithy brought to the plaintiff's premises, and was it so near as to annoy his comforts?-Verdict for the Plaintiff.

wise disturbed, a certain line of road, from Margate to Canterbury, in the parish of St. John the Baptist, to the great annoyance and obstruction of his Majesty's subjects.

Mr. Bolland stated the case for the Crown, by which it appeared that there had been established, for more than fifty years, a line of road through Birchington, from Margate to Canterbury; but that this being considered of late years too narrow for coaches, it became necessary to have it widened. Accordingly, in the years 1809 and 1810, that measure was adopted; and besides the ancient or Roman road, there were two others called the Blue and Red roads. Upon the subject of these roads there were already pending between the present defendants and others no less than seven actions and four indictments; one party complaining of the obstruction set up by Mrs. Macnamara, and a professional gentleman named Hill, who had jointly attempted to stop up the communication of the road in question. Mrs. Macnamara, it appeared, lived somewhere on the road side, which being widened, she at first endeavoured to dissuade the passengers from going that way; but not succeeding in this, Mr. Hill (who was also included in the indictment) urged her to stop up what was called the Red Road, and accordingly trenches were thrown up, palings and fences were erected, and carriages passing that way were in consequence upset, and subjected to other accidents. Mr. Bushell, a surveyor, immediately remonstrated upon these obstruc tions, and insisted upon their

removal,

removal, but to no purpose; Mrs. Macnamara contending that the passage was an innovation, and that the Blue Road was the proper line of communication. He proceeded, however, by force, to remove the obstructions in question, but they were soon afterwards re-established. Mr. Bushell again remonstrated, but in vain; and he accordingly gave notice, that if the obstructions were not removed in twenty days, he would again proceed as he had before done. Accordingly, on the 13th of February, he went to the spot, accompanied by some men, where he found the defendants marshalling their labourers, and Mr. Hill, in particular, ordering them not to mind what Mr. Bushell said. The parties on each side then commenced, the one to fill up, the other to dig the trenches, and alternately to pull down and remove the obstructions, the other to replace them. During this struggle, the defendants threatened to send the other party to gaol; but they persevered, and succeeded in their purpose of removing the obstructions. These, however, after some time, were again raised, and it became necessary to bring the present action. The learned counsel, having expatiated upon the nature of the offence in question, proceeded to call a variety of witnesses, surveyors, farmers, carriers, newsmen, persons who tithed the road side, who repaired and improved it, and individuals, some of whom had known and traversed the road which had been obstructed for more than seven, others for ten, fifteen, and even fifty years previously.

The foregoing facts were fully proved by a variety of witnesses, among whom were Messrs. Bushell, Taddy, Woodward, Pasmore, &c.

For the defence, Mr. Gurney made an ingenious and animated reply, and called nearly twenty witnesses in support of his statement.

Lord Ellenborough having summed up the evidence, the defendants were found Guilty.

Court of King's-Bench, Wednesday, July 10.-Hume, esq. v. Oldacre. This was an action of trespass.

The plaintiff resides at Pinner-park, near Stanmore : the defendant is huntsman of a pack of hounds employed in the Berkeley hunt. The trespass complained of was, that the defendant broke and entered a close belonging to the plaintiff on the 4th of April 1815.

The Attorney-General said, that the Berkeley hunt had been established about 30 years ago by the noble Earl who bore that title, and it had afterwards been continued by Lord Sefton. At that time it was conducted in the most regular and inoffensive manner, and a field of noblemen and gentlemen was always assembled, who restrained their sports to other parts of the country, without wanton destruction of property in the vicinity of Stanmore and Watford. The hunt then fell into the hands of subscribers, and its character was completely changed, for any Cockney who could hire a horse, or any groom who could borrow one from his absent master, repaired to it for a day's sport, to the great injury of property

property in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, where the soil was ill suited to the purpose. The Berkeley hunt and its trespasses were not unknown to his Lordship, as actions against some of the members had been tried a few years since before him at Hertford, and it was hoped that nominal damages to settle the right would have been sufficient. In this expectation, however, the injured party was disappointed, and some proprietors of land were under the necessity of instituting new proceedings against the whipper-in, who was now in confinement for the damages and costs, though he would soon be relieved by the operation of that panacea for debtors of all kindsthe insolvent act. This whipperin was the son of the present de fendant, who by this action would probably be placed in the same situation as his son; but the individuals whose property had been destroyed had no other remedy to which they could resort. The learned counsel therefore hoped that the jury would give such da mages on the present occasion as would give some more effectual protection. To such an extent had the destruction by the gentlemen of the Berkeley hunt been carried, that the noblemen and others, proprietors of estates near Stanmore and Edgware, had been compelled to associate themselves for general defence, and the Earl of Essex and the Marquis of Abercorn had been compelled to put up extraordinary fences round their property the latter had actually put up chevaux-de-frise, and had dug trenches, but in vain, for these mighty hunters from

town defied all obstacles but such as were calculated to resist an invading army. In truth, that part of the country to which he had referred was at present out of the protection of the law; no rights were held sacred, and no property was secure; it was rather like a border district between two hos tile countries, than the centre of a land where the law restrained wilful and repeated aggressions.

A notice from many noblemen and gentlemen, and among them from the defendant, dated in 1808, warning the members of the Berkeley hunt from their grounds, was the first piece of evidence: after which Thomas Shirley and Joseph Carwood were called to prove, that the defendant on the 4th of April, with about 30 sportsmen, rode over two fields belonging to Mr. Hume, and destroyed turnips to the value of 40s. or 50s. Mr. Hume had become the proprietor of the fields in question about three years ago.

Lord Ellenborough observed, that the notice, being dated in 1808, could not apply to these closes.

Mr. Gurney, in addressing the jury for the defendant, complained that the Attorney-general, in his speech, had introduced statements which had very little truth; much exaggeration, and no relation to the present cause. Like the Berkeley hunt which he had described, he had ridden over å large field without restraint, trampling down all obstacles that presented themselves to his imaginative course. The fact however was, that the hunt at present was confined to a few individuals of great respectability in the

country,

country, who were disposed to do as little injury as possible, and to make compensation whenever reasonable complaint was made. It appeared in evidence that Mr. Hume had only recently become possessed of the fields on which the defendant had trespassed, and the ignorance of the huntsman of this purchase had led to it, for the plaintiff was the only' individuat in that parish who objected to the diversion which the de fendant was conducting

After a few remarks from Lord' Ellenborough, a verdict was found for the plaintiff damages 40s.

Hance v. Stone and others. This was an action of trespass for cut ting down a parcel of willow trees; in an orchard at Brixton, adjoinings the river Epher. Mr. Ser jeant Best stated, that the plaintiff was a respectable tradesman in London, and the defendant Stone, who was the principal defendant, a magistrate of Surrey, but whose conduct disgraced the name and character of a gentleman. The plaintiff was in possession of a house at Brixton, adjoining to which was an orchard belonging to the defendant, and which he wished much to possess as a convenience to his house. This the defendant agreed to let to him; but, knowing he desired it much, made a Jew's bargain with him, for he made him pay 101: an acre✨ for the land, and reserved to himi self all the fruit, with liberty for his own fowls to walk, and himself and all his company; so that, in fact, the plaintiff had the mere use of it as an object of pleasure from his house: There happened' to be some shady willow trees at the bottom over-hanging the

1

t

stream, under which the plaintif had made a gravel walk, and had placed a tent, and used to recreate himself and family by sitting there on the summer afternoons. The defendant, as he before observed, had reserved to himself the right of walking in the orchard also, and he used this right to the annoyance of the plaintiff and family, and not as a gentleman would have done. This led to some altercation, when, to show the malignant disposition of the man, he came with his workmen one day, and cut' down all the willow trees which were the chief object of the plaintiff's pleasure. Now, although he was the owner of the orchard, he was not warranted in doing this, for he had leased it to the plaintiff for five years; under certain conditions; and although he had reserved a great deal for himself, he had not reserved the trees, and therefore was a trespasser for cutting them down during the continuance of1 the term:

The lease being read, and the' demise proved, Mr. Serjeant Onslow called two witnesses to prove that the trees were beyond the bank, and not within the limits" of the orchard, but failing to establish this point, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff Damages501.

COMMERCIAL CAUSES.

Court of Chancery, Wednesday, Jan. 24-Ex-parte Dyster re Moline. This was the second argument in this case, which is of the utmost importance to brokers and merchants in the city of London. The facts were these:-Mr. Dy:" ster, a sworn broker, was also a

partner