|
.V.A 26
its value for other purposes, as it will be only by an examination and considera-
tion of these matters that the real injury and actual damages can be fairly ascer-
tained; that if the jury believe the plaintiff's property has been injured by the di-
version of the waters from the western cove to the eastern cove, and that such
diversion was neither malicious, negligent, or careless, but was even bene-
ficial to the general interests of the city, made with the best advice, and
with due circumspection, consulting the general prosperity of the city and
its inhabitants, either for securing the health of the city, or of preserving
more effectually its navigation, still, notwithstanding the jury should believe
these facts, the plaintiff is entitled to damages for the injury the jury shall 1
find the plaintiff may have sustained, in as much as this general improvement 1
would, in such case, be made for the benefit and advantage of the inhabitants 1
of Baltimore, and it would be unjust that the property of the plaintiff should
be deteriorated, (and to the extent of such injury,) deprived of his proper- 'j
ty without remuneration." To which opinion and direction of the court J
to the jury, the defendants, by their counsel, prayed leave to except, and ;
that the court would sign and seal this their bill of exception, according to '
the form of the statute in such case made and provided, which is according-
ly done, this fourteenth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and twenty-eight
STEVENSON ARCHER. [SEAL.]
BAURON, survivor of Craig, ~)
vs. >
THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE. )
At the trial of this cause, the plaintiff, further to support the issue on hi»
part, in addition to the evidence stated in the aforegoing bills of exceptions,
offered in evidence to the jury, by Hezekiah Waters, a competent witness,
sworn at the bar, that he is the proprietor of a wharf about two or three
hundred yards south, from the years 1814 and T815; the income of his
wharf was about $2,000 per annum; that from 1815 to 1817 it was from
, $1,500 to $2,000; and that the income of his wharf has depreciated by the
depression of commerce about fifty per cent. The plaintiff also offered in
evidence, that his wharf has births for eight ships, and that the wharf of the
plaintiff has births for five ships; that his wharf has storehouses, and that
the plaintiff's has none; that the wharfage of the plaintiff's wharf, from
the year 1815 to 1817, he supposes to have been worth from $800 to g 1,000
per annum. The plaintiff also offered in evidence, by James Beacham, *
competent witness, that, in the year 1820, he rented the space between the
piers of the plaintiff's wharf as a ship yard, for $300; that, in the year 1835,
he rented the whole of the wharf property, including the spar house, 120
feet long, and other buildings, except the blacksmith and boatbuilder's shop,
lor $700 per annum; that if there was the same depth of water there novr
as in the year 1816, the property would be worth about $400 or $500 more
to him for his purposes. The said witness also stated that the ship Frank-
lin, of about 350 tons, drawing about 15 or 15$ feet water, was at the saw
wharf, he thinks, for the last time, in the year 1823 or '4, but after being
delayed by the shallowness of the water, when loaded had some difficulty »n
getting out, and has not returned. The plaintiff also offered evidence,
that his piers were built in the year 1816, and that they cost $6,000. .
Whereupon the said defendants prayed the opinion and direction of tn
court to the jury, that, upon the said evidence, the plaintiff is not entitled
a?
recover beyond the loss he may prove himself to have sustained in the loss
of income from the said whart, during the time stated in the declaration, unless
the jury should find, from the evidence, that there has also been a permanent
injury done to the wharf itself, in addition to the impediment of the naviga-
tion to it; which opinion and direction the court refused to give to the jury,
and referred the jury to the opinion contained in the first bill of exceptions,
which were accordingly again given to the jury,.as they are in the first, hill
of exceptions stated; to which opinion and direction of the court to the jury,
the defendants, by their counsel, prayed leave to except^ and that the court
would sign and seal this his bill of exception, according to the form of the
statute in such case made and provided, and which is accordingly done, this
fourteenth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred
and twenty-eight.
STEVENSON ARCHER. [SEAL.]
BARRON, survivor of Craig, ^
vs. >
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. ) '
At the trial of this cause, upon the evidence offered to the jury, as detail-
ed in the preceding bills of exception, the defendants prayed the opinion
and direction of the court to the jury. 3. That as the present action was
brought on the 21st of March, 1822, and as no evidence has been offered to
show that any particular vessel, before the institution of this suit, was pre-
vented from going to said wharf, by reason of the diminished depth of the
V, water in the said cove, orator near the said wharf, the plaintiff has not
I; shown himself entitled to recover, in this action, any special damage for the
HT loss of wharfage at said wharf; which opinion and direction the court refused
| to give; and the defendants, by their counsel, prayed leave to except, and
I thai the court would sign and seal this their bill of exceptions, according to
l': the form of the statute in such case made and provided; and which is accord-
ingly done, this fourteenth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thou-
sand eight hundred and twenty-eight.
STEVENSON ARCHER. [SEAL.]
BARRON, survivor of Craig,
VS.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, j .
. At the trial of this cause, upon the evidence offered by thep.am-
Jury, as detailed in the preceding b.lls of exccption^he de.e £
the opinion and direction of the court to the jury, tnai n the
is sufficiently charged in the declaration, and that the pu , ? ^
pleadings in'this eaL, is therefore not entitled to recov* hi.n ^ ^^
direction the courT refused to 'give; and tho deiendantb, their bill
prayed leave to except, and that th« court woud sign «nd,e ^ ^
Of exception, according to the form of the statute n sucii
•provided, which is accordingly done, this fourteen'h day ot li >,
•—- of our Lord one thousand eightjijin^ [SEAL-]
|
