1769
October.
Mr. Soll. Generals
Opinion}

If it could shown that Mr. W. was antecedently obliged to contribute to the
Repair of this Bridge by repairing his Warf, the Act of the Justice in 1724 would
not discharge him, but I see nothing in this case to charge Mr. W. with any
Obligation to repair or even to continue his ground in the Form of wharf agst.
his will - There may be Cases of Public wharfs where all the Kings Subjects
have a right to land their goods paying certain Rates of Wharfage and the Owner
of the Wharf in consideration of those Payments is compellable to keep it in
repair, but this for anything that appears is private property from the use of
which the Owner may exclude whom he pleases or admit them upon what Terms
he pleases; and the his ancestors might think it their Interest to make a wharf
of it, which from its situation whilst it was kept in repair affored protection to
the Bridge below, their Voluntary Repairs for the sake of their own Property and
not of the Bridge , tho the Bridge was accidentally benefitted by it, will not
Oblige him to continue to repair, if it is no longer his Interest or Inclination
so to do - I am of Opinion therefore that the obligation which is Admitted to lie
on the Counties to repair the Bridge extends to every thing necessary for its
preservation and that if the wharf in the Condition it is will not protect the
Bridge as it has done, it behoves the Justices to take some other Means of
preventing the mischief it is threatened with at he County Expence.

J. Dunning, Lincolns Inn
15th. Novr. 1769 .