The King against The Inhabitants of the Parts of Lindsey in the County of Loncoln
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 June 1811 |
| Date | 29 June 1811 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 623
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
the king against the inhabitants op the parts of lindsey in the county of lincoln. Saturday, June 29th, 1811. A canal company, authorized by an Act of Parliament to make the river Bain navigable, and to make and enlarge certain navigable cuts, and build bridges and other works connected with the navigation, having for their own benefit made a navigable cut and deepened a ford which crossed the highway, and thereby rendered a bridge necessary for the passage of the public, which was accordingly built at the expense of the company in the first instance, are bound to maintain the same ; and the burthen of repair cannot be thrown upon the inhabitants of the (county) parts of Lindsey, in the county of Lincoln. The company were found tovhave profitable funds for the purpose. This indictment charged that for 18 years past there has been and still is a certain public and common bridge in the parish of Coningsby, in the parts of Lindsey, over the river Bain, at a place called Butt's Ford, situate in the King's common highway leading from the town of Coningsby t j the town of Tattershall, in the same parts, &c. used by all the King's subjects with their carriages, &c.; and that the said bridge was, on the 31st of December, 49 Geo. 3, ruinous and broken down, &c. and that the defendants were bound to repair it. [318] The defendants pleaded, that the Company of Proprietors of the Horncastle Navigation, in the county of Lincoln, mentioned in an Act of the 32 Geo. 3, (hereinafter set forth), after the 1st of June, 1792, and before the taking of this inquisition, to wit, on the 31st of January, 35 Geo. 3, for their own use, benefit, and convenience, and under and by virtue of the authority and powers vested in them by that Act, made a navigable cut near the side of the river Bain, communicating therewith, to straighten the course of the river, and to avoid obstructions to the navigation of it; and through and along which navigable cut, large quantities of water, to wit, of the said river, from the time of making such navigable cut, have continually flowed and still flow; and that the said company of proprietors afterwards, &c. under the same authority and powers, erected the said bridge (in question) upon and over the said navigable cut so made as aforesaid, and not upon and over the ancient course and channel of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Stoughton
...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 Bing. 91, Henley v. Mayor of Lyme Regw. 3......
- Municipal Tramways Trust v Stephens
-
The Mayor and Burgesses of Lyme Regis, - Plaintiffs (in Error); Henry Hoste Henley, Esq., - Defendant (in Error)
...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. 11 Hen. 4. 82. |j 10 Rep. 139 a. 11 Cowp. 86. ** H......
-
The Company of Proprietors of the Lancaster Canal Company against Parnaby and Others
...is not particularly directed, shall be applied and disposed of for the use of the navigation. (b) 12 East, 527. Rex v. Lindsey, 14 East, 317, was cited in the argument below. (c) 3 B. & Ad. 108; 4 A. &. E. 731. See Rex v. Edge Lane, 4 A. & E. 723. (a) 3 New Ca. 334. Cotton v. Browne, 3 A. &......