1839. 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



las 



PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. 



March l.~Cahduida Canu/.— Select committee appointed " with a view to 

 consider and report to the House, what steps it is advisable to take with 

 respect to the present state of the Caledonian Canal." 



Makch 1 Irish Kaihvuys. — Motion made, and question proposed, "That 



her Majesty be enabled to authorise Exchequer Bills to an amount not 

 eeceeding 2,500,000/., to be made out by direction of the Lords Commis- 

 sioners of the Treasury, and to be by them advanced for the construction of 

 a railway or railways in Ireland, the sum so advanced being secured, and the 

 interest and sinking fund to be secured on the profits of the works, the 

 deficiency, if any. being provided for by an assessment, on the several 

 districts through which suca railway or railways may be carried, or what 

 may be benefitted thereby." — Question put, Ayes 144, Noes 100. 



LAW PROCEEDINGS. 



PAVING ACT, 



M.^RLBOHOUGH-STBEET. — A matter of some importance to paving boards 

 and proprietors of land -was argued on Saturday, 2d ult,, before Mr. Conant 

 and Mr. Dyer, the sitting magistrates. 



Lady Montfort, the lessee of a mansion in Park-lane, appeared by counsel 

 (Mr. Clarksou) to ans-wer an information laid under Mr. -A. Taylor's act, 

 by the trastees of the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, for an alleged 

 violation of the act, in breaking up the pavement to the length of eight 

 inches, whereby her ladysliip had incurred a penalty not exceeding 10/, 



Mr. Clarksou said the question between the parties -was one of great public 

 importance. Lady Montfort, in order to have a magisterial decision on the 

 point at issue, had caused to be taken up a portion of the pavement before 

 the house to which .she laid claim as private property, and as belonging to 

 the site of the house leased to her. 



Mr. Bodkin, on the part of the trastees, said that in 1831, Lady Montfort 

 rebuilt the house, and at that time she applied to the paving board to open 

 a grating before it, but she -was refused. Since tlie refusal, in order to 

 raise the present question, she had broken the groimd, and the trustees in 

 consequence had adopted the present proceedings. 



Mr. Clarksou said it was true that Lady Montfort had applied to the 

 pavement board for permission to open a grating, and had been refused. 

 But lier application was for 18 inches, an extent of ground which he admit- 

 ted Lady Montfort could not claim. Lady Montfort, in the present 

 instance, had broken the pavement to the extent of eight inches, wliich she 

 was prepared to prove by her lease was part of the ground belonging to the 

 house. 



The lease wa,s tlien produced, by wldch it appeared that the extent of 

 (he ground in feet and inches was specified. The present mansion occupied 

 the entire space, with tlie exception of eight uichcs, which tlie parish au- 

 thorities some time back had paved over. 



Mr. Bodkin said the parish proved their right by pacing the groiuid 

 in 18.31. 



Mr. Conant asked who was the freeholder of the grotuid ? 



Mr. Clarksou said Ihe freehold was vested in the Dean and Chapter of 

 Westminster. It was true the parish had paved over the eight inches now 

 claimed since 18.3), but that act did not vest the proprietorship of the soil 

 in the parish. What answer would it be to the Ireeliolders, because the 

 leaseholder had not chosen to take in the eight inches w-hen rebuilding 

 Ihe house, that the parish hud paved the place and taken the soil V Though 

 the parish had pave'd the ground, the freeholder, he contended, could resume 

 it when lie pleased. 



Mr. Bodkin said, if it were competent for a person lo go back to old 

 docimients to prove that at one tune a portion of ground belonged to him, 

 whal, for instance, was to hinder Lord Grosvcnor from resorting to the 

 same course witli respect to his property, and to say lo the parisli, "I had 

 tills ground, aud I will break up the pavement and carry out a portico in 

 assertion of my rights:'" 



Mr. Conant said, as lord Grosvenor had been referred to in the way of 

 illustration, lie would carry the argunieni further. Suppose the parish 

 chose to pave before his lordship's house, they might then set up a claim 

 lo the groimd. I'liis appeared somewhat of tlie ualuie of Lady MouUbrt's 

 case. 



Mr. Bodldn said, the question was very important, and the parties were 

 anxious to have the matter reviewed in a solemn way by an appeal to the 

 superior courts. 



Mr, Conant said, he thought the trustees were bomid to show on what 

 groimds they paved the portion of land in dispute. 



Mr. Cunningham, the late surveyor, was called, but he could state 

 nothing more than that he had paved flush up to Lady Montfort's house, 

 in compliance with the orders of the paving board. He could not say 

 whether the eight inches now claimed did not form part of the groiuid 

 claimed by the freeholder. 



Mr. Couaut said, the matter for tlic court to decide was not whether the 

 ground was public or private property; the question was as to the juris- 

 diction of the act of Parliament, and whether the present proceeding was 

 such an encroachment as subjected the party adjoining it to a penalty. It 

 would have been \ery material had the surveyor been able to show the 

 groiuid on which the trustees had ordered liim to pave the place, or that 

 the eight inches in question did not form a portion of the private freehold ; but 



ili« svuyejor wuld do ng niwi llian pwvs \M l'«i abeut ei£iJt y«aw J>« b«4 



