<div1 type="SM_PSpage" id="LMSMPS50815PS508150059"> <xptr type="pageFacsimile" doc="LMSMPS508150059"></xptr>
<p n="368"> 686 Easter Term 10 Geo. 3. K. B.</p>
<p n="369">That the antient Foot Bridge stood sixty Yards below the<lb></lb>
<rs type="placeName" id="LMSMPS50815_geo201">new Bridge</rs>
<interp inst="LMSMPS50815_geo201" type="placeName" value="new Bridge"></interp>
<interp inst="LMSMPS50815_geo201" type="type" value="undefined"></interp>
, in the same Highway.</p>
<p n="370">That the said Road was made a Turnpike Road, in 1755;<lb></lb>
and about 1766, the Commissioners laid out 6s. in the Repair<lb></lb>
of the said Bridge.</p>
<p n="371">Whereupon the defendants were found Guilty, subject to<lb></lb>
the Opinion of the Court on this Question; Whether the In-<lb></lb>
habitants of the West Riding are obliged, to rebuild the said<lb></lb>
new Bridge?</p>
<p n="372">Mr. <rs type="occupation" id="LMSMPS50815_occ111">Weyman</rs>
<interp inst="LMSMPS50815_occ111" type="occupation" value="Weyman"></interp>
for the prosecutors argued, that <rs type="placeName" id="LMSMPS50815_geo202">the Bridge</rs>
<interp inst="LMSMPS50815_geo202" type="placeName" value="the Bridge"></interp>
<interp inst="LMSMPS50815_geo202" type="type" value="undefined"></interp>
be-<lb></lb>
ing of public Utility, though erected by private Contribution,<lb></lb>
the Riding was bond to maintain it; and cited, Roll. Abr.<lb></lb>
891. 2 Inst. 701. 13 Rep.33. 1 Salk. 359. Queen and Wilts.<lb></lb>
And that a Clause was inserted, in 9 Geo. 2. c. 29. to prevent<lb></lb>
<rs type="placeName" id="LMSMPS50815_geo203">Westminster Bridge</rs>
<interp inst="LMSMPS50815_geo203" type="placeName" value="Westminster Bridge"></interp>
<interp inst="LMSMPS50815_geo203" type="type" value="undefined"></interp>
from being a County Bridge, as it otherwise<lb></lb>
would have been.</p>
<p n="373">Mr. Lee for the Defendants insisted, that neither Common<lb></lb>
Law, nor the Statute Hen. 8. extend to the Case of Persons, who<lb></lb>
voluntarily erect a Bridge within time of Memory-That Magna<lb></lb>
Charta, c. 15. is express, against the erecting of <rs type="placeName" id="LMSMPS50815_geo204">new Bridges</rs>
<interp inst="LMSMPS50815_geo204" type="placeName" value="new Bridges"></interp>
<interp inst="LMSMPS50815_geo204" type="type" value="undefined"></interp>
.<lb></lb>
That, according to Lord Coke's Coment thereon in 2 Inst.<lb></lb>
it is necessary to have a special Presentment, that it does not<lb></lb>
appear, who are bound to repair, before the County or Rid-<lb></lb>
ing can be charged. That the Report of the Queen and Wilts<lb></lb>
in 6 Mod. differs from that in Salkeld. And he cited 1 Roll.<lb></lb>
abr. 368. Where a Man makes a Bridge to a Mill, it ought<lb></lb>
to be repaired by him, that made it; because it is for is own<lb></lb>
private Advantage.</p>
<p n="374">But Aston, Willes, and Blackstone Justices (absente Lord Mans-<lb></lb>
field Chief Justice) were of Opinion, that were a private Per-<lb></lb>
son or Persons, erect a Bridge that is of public Utility; the<lb></lb>
Public (that is, the County or Riding) are bound to keep it<lb></lb>
in Repair. That Magna Charta only extends to prevent the<lb></lb>
Subject, from being compelled to erect new Bridges-Non<lb></lb>
distringatur</p>
<p n="375">B N. Master Burrows in his Report of this Cause says<lb></lb>
Lord Mansfield come into Court, just after the other three<lb></lb>
Judges had declared their Opinion & expressed his intire<lb></lb>
approbation of, art Agreement with them in, it.</p>
</div1>

View as Text