The King against The Inhabitants of The County of Kent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 January 1811 |
| Date | 25 January 1811 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 354
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Referred to, Hertfordshire County Council v. New River Company, [1904] 2 Ch. 519.
the king against the inhabitants of the county of kent. Friday, Jan. 25th, 1811. The Medway Navigation Company being empowered under a local Act (16 & 17 Car. 2) to make the river navigable, and to take tolls; and "to amend or alter such bridges or highways as might hinder the passage or navigation, leaving them or others as convenient in their room," &c.; and they having 40 years ago destroyed a ford across the river in the common highway, by deepening its bed, and built a bridge over, the same place, are bound to keep such,bridge in repair, as under a continuing condition to preserve the new passage in lieu of tbe old one, which they destroyed for their own benefit. [Referred to, Hertfordshire County Gounc.il v. New River Company, [1904] 2 Ch. 519.] This indictment charged, that a public and common bridge, called St. Helen's Bridge, situate in the King's common highway, over the river Medway, in the parishes of East Barming and West Farleigh, in the county of Kent, was out of repair, &e. and that the inhabitants of the county were bound to repair it. The inhabitants [221] of the county (excepting the Company of Proprietors of the Navigation of the River Medway) pleaded, that long before the time of erecting the said bridge, and at the same place, and in the same part of the river Medway where the said bridge was erected, there was, and from time to time immemorial, until the deepening of the water as after mentioned, there had been a public highway through a ford in the river Medway, in the said parishes of East Barming and West Farleigh, in the county aforesaid, for all the subjects of the King to pass, &c. with their cattle and carriages, at all times of the year, at their free will: and further, that the Company of Proprietors of the Navigation of the River Medway afterwards, and before the erecting of the said bridge, to wit, on the 1st of June, 1740, for the purpose of the navigation of the said river, and for the profit of the said company, did greatly deepen the water in the same place and part of the river Medway where the said ford and highway before then was and had been for all the time aforesaid, and where the said bridge was afterwards erected as after mentioned; and did by such deepening of the water destroy the said ford, and render the said highway wholly impassable; and it then and there became and was necessary for the liege subjects of the King, their cattle and carriages, and the duty of the said company, to erect a bridge at the same place over the river Medway. Whereupon the said company afterwards, to wit, on the 10th of June, 1767, did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Stoughton
...that he, and not the county, was bound to repair the bridge as long as the navigation continued. 3 M. & S. 526, Rex, v. Kerrison. See also 13 East, 220, Rex v. Inhabitants of Kent. 14 East, 317, Rex v. Inhabitants of Lindsey. [2 M. & Gr. 175, Priestley v. Fmilds. 2 Scott, N. R. 265, S. C. 5......
- Municipal Tramways Trust v Stephens
-
The Mayor and Burgesses of Lyme Regis, - Plaintiffs (in Error); Henry Hoste Henley, Esq., - Defendant (in Error)
...358. I Vide as to Prescription, Paine v. Partrich, Garth., 194., Tenure, 12 H. VII. 18. Acts of Parliament, Rex v. Inhabitants of Kent, 13 East, 220. ; Rex v. Inhabitants of Lindsay, 14 East, 317.; Rex v. Kerrison, 3 M. and S. 526. Nuisances to Public Rights, Rex v. Stoughton, 2 Saund. 157.......
-
The Company of Proprietors of the Grand Surrey Canal v Hall
...bridges built across highways, the canal being made for private purposes, and not for the public benefit. See Hex v. Inhabitants of Kent, 13 East, 220; Bex v. Inhabitants of Lindsey, 14 East, 317; Rex v. Kerrison, 3 M. & S. 526. As the bridge was not originally a public carriageway, and as ......