The King against Smith and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 June 1780 |
| Date | 13 June 1780 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 283
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
the king against smith and others. Tuesday, 13th June, 1780. The right to the soil of a navigable river, is not, by presumption of law, in the owners of the adjoining lands.-It is an offence at common law, to obstruct the execution of powers grauted by statute, and an indictment for such offence need not, and ought not, to conclude " contra formam statuti." This was an indictment against the defendants, for obstructing the Mayor and Commonalty of the City of London, in making a horse-towing path on the soil of the river Thames, under powers vested in them by the statutes of 14 Geo. 3, c. 91, and 17 Geo. 3, c. 18. The first count recited the Act, and charged, that a horse-towing path was begun to be made from Water-Lane at Richmond Bridge and certain wooden piles fixed, by order of the common council, on [442] the soil and bed of the river, between high-water mark and low-water mark, and that the defendants, intending to obstruct the mayor, &c. cut down one of the said piles, &c. The second count laid the piles to have been driven upon the soil and bed of the river, being the King's ancient common highway for all the liege subjects to navigate. The third count laid the towing path to have been between the City of London and the city-stone at Staines Bridge, between high-water mark and low-water mark. The fourth count stated, that a towing path was begun, &c. by the committee, (naming them,) appointed by tte common council to execute the Act, on the soil, &c. being the King's ancient and common high-way, between high-water mark and low-water mark, &c. The fifth count set forth, that a towing path had been begun by order of the common council, &c. (but without mentioning the Act of Parliament). The sixth and last count resembled the fifth, only stating, that the towing path had been begun by order of the committee. The trial came on before Ashhurst, Justice, at the last Lent Assizes for the county of Surry, when a verdict was found for the King, subject to the opinion of the Court on the following case: " The City of London, under the powers supposed to be delegated to them under the Act of Parliament of 14 Geo. 3, e. 91, and by the 17th of the same King, intituled, &c. (c. 18) erected piles on the bed of the river, near Eichmond, within the high-water mark, about the distance of 29 feet from the shore, for the purpose of making a towing path for horses, adjoining and contiguous to a wharf in the possession, and the property of the defendants, or of those under whom they claim. The defendants cut down one of those piles, which is the subject of the present indictment, and which was proved to have been erected between the high...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Gumana v Northern Territory
-
The King v Dickenson
...B. & A. 163, Rex v. Garlile, per Abbott, C.J. accord.] So to obstruct the execution of an Act of Parliament is indictable at common law. 2 Doug. 441, Rex \. Smith. [11 A. & E. 727, Rex. v. Price.. 3 P. & D. 421, S. C.] 1 WM1SADND. 1S6. HIL. 19 AND 20 CAR. II. REGIS 145 and an inclosure of t......
- Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd; Smorgon v Commissioner of Taxation
-
Doe, d. THE RIGHT HON. GEORGE HAMILTON MARQUIS of DONEGAL, v RIGHT HON. HENRY SPENCER BARON TEMPLEMORE
...v. WilsonENR 3 East, 294. Doe d. Freeland v. Burt 1 T. REp. 701. Duke of Devonshire v. Hodnett 1 Hud. & Br. 322. The King v. SmithENR 2 Doug. 441. The King v. Bishop of RochesterENRUNK 2 Mod. 1; S. C. 10 Rep. 113. Wrottsley v. Adams Plowd. 191. Swift v. EyresENR Cro. Car. 548. Jack v, M'Int......