C. P.] METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (apps.) v. CLEVER (resp.) detailed to lay out, or concert in laying out, such | street, he is not liable to be called upon to set back his fence, leaving a space of 20 feet between it and the centre or crown of the roadway, and that particularly in the present case, as his houses front to the Ladywell Park-road, the provision of sect. 98, and of the bye-law, do not extend to compel him to set the oak fencing back to the required distance; nor is he to be forced thus to give up and throw into the new street so much of his property as lies between the existing boundary and the line of 20 feet measuring from the centre or crown of the roadway in Hither Green-lane. The question for the opinion of the court is whether, under the facts before appearing, the line of the respondent's oak fencing ought to be set back to a distance of 20 feet, measuring southward from the centre line or crown of the roadway in Hither Green-lane. If the court shall be of opinion in the affirmative, the respondent is to be convicted in the penalty of 40s., but if the court shall be of opinion in the negative, then the decision of the magistrate is to stand affirmed. The following are some of the bye-laws referred to: 1. Four weeks at the least before any new street shall be laid out, written notice shall be given to the Metropolitan Board of Works at their office, Spring-gardens, in the county of Middlesex, by the person or persons intending to lay out sach new street, stating the proposed level and width thereof, and accompanied by a plan of the ground, showing the local situation of the same. 2. Forty feet at the least shall be the width of every new street intended for carriage traffic; twenty feet at the least shall be the width of every new street intended only for foot traffic. Provided that the said width respectively shall be construed to mean the width of the carriage and footway only, exclusive of any gardens, forecourts, open areas, or other spaces in front of the houses or buildings erected or intended to be erected in any street. 4. The measurement of the width of every new street shall be taken at a right angle to the course thereof, half on either ide to the centre or crown of the roadway to the external wall or front of the intended houses or buildings on each side thereof, but where forecourts or other spaces are intended to be left in front of the houses or buildings, then the width of the street as already defined shall be measured from the centre line up the fence railing or boundary dividing or intended to divide such forecourts, gardens, or spaces from the public way. 7. In this bye-law the word "street" shall be interpreted to apply to and include any highway (except the carriage way of any turnpike-road) and any road, public bridge (not being a county bridge), lane, footway, square, court, alley, or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not, and a part of any such highway, road, bridge, lane, footway, square, and alley or passage. In case of any breach of the regulations contained in this bye-law, the offender shall be liable for each offence to a penalty of 40s., and in case of a continuing offence, to a further penalty of 20s. for each day after notice thereof from the Metropolitan Board of Works. Philbrick for appellants.-The magistrate finds that Hither Green-lane has within the past year or thereabouts been formed and laid out for building as a street for the purposes of carriage traffic. That being the case, the respondent is liable under the second and fourth byelaws, although the land at the back only of his houses abut upon the lane. In the case of The Metropolitan Board of Works v. Cor, 19 C. B., N. S., 449, in which it was held that this 98th section did not apply where the building abutted in the rear upon an old lane called Hoblane, which was of less width than forty feet; the lane was not laid out at all, and nothing was done by the defendant towards altering the fence between the lane and his building land. It was held in Taylor v. The Metropolitan Board of Works, L. Rep. 2Q B. 213, that the defendant, by taking down an old fence and erecting a permanent one did begin to form and lay out the road for building as a street. Codd for respondent.-Willes, J. said, in the case [C. P. of The Metropolitan Board of Works v. Cox, "The meaning of the 98th section of the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 102, evidently is, that the street, on which the houses front is to be of the prescribed width. I must own I should have thought it a question of fact." Here that question of fact is found by the magistrate, and his decision that the backs of the respondent's houses abut upon the Hither Green-lane is an answer to the appellants contention. Philbrick, in reply, cited Reg. v. Fullford, 33 L. J. 122, M. C. WILLES, J.-I am of opinion that the magistrate was right, and that his decision ought to be affirmed. This will be clear when the frame of the section is considered. The Metropolitan Local Management Acts Amendment Act (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102) provides by the 98th section that "No existing road, passage, or way, being of a less width than 40 feet, shall be hereafter formed or laid out for building as a street for the purposes of carriage traffic, unless such road, passage, or way be widened to the full width of 40 feet, the measurement of the width of such street to be taken, half on either side from the centre or crown of the roadway to the external wall or front of the houses or buildings erected, or intended to be erected, on each side thereof; but where forecourts or other spaces are intended to be left in front of the houses or buildings, then the width shall be measured up to the fence or boundary dividing or intended to divide such forecourts or spaces from the public way... And any road, passage or way hereafter to be formed or laid out for either of the purposes aforesaid, shall be deemed to be a new street, and become subject to all the provisions of the recited Acts and this Act, and to the provisions and penalties, and under any bye-laws made or to be made, in pursuance thereof in relation to sewerage, drainage, or paving, and to width, construction, surface, inclination, and other requirements and particulars." Now it is found in the case that the respondent has himself done any act toward forming or laying out this lane as a street for carriage traffic, otherwise than so far as the removal of the old thorn fence and erection of the oak park fence may be such act, nor has he any present intention of doing any such act or putting up any building fronting towards this lane. I think it is not sufficient to show that the fence has been altered, but care must be taken to fix upon the person who has committed an offence under this section. The defendant had an old fence which he took down; he put a new one a little way back, but not back so far as to be 20 feet from the middle of the old road; can this be said to have been forming or laying out for building as a street for the purposes of carriage traffic? There was no intention to build, nor any act towards committing an offence. The decision in the case of Taylor v. Metropolitan Board of Works proceeded mainly on the ground that the defendant intended to lay out the road as a street, as appears from the conclusion of the judgment of my brother Blackburn. There is no such evidence here; indeed the case finds the contrary; the magistrate's decision will therefore be affirmed with costs. BYLES, J.- I am of the same opinion. Here the respondent is a large owner of land adjacent to a lane, in which probably some one had formed an intention to build; but there was no such intention on the respondent's part. This is a serious question, and it would not do to hold that an Act of Parliament can take away a man's land without distinct words to that effect. Moreover this seems to me to Q. B.] LAYARD V. OVery-Duke of Buccleugh v. METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS. [Ex. be within the decision concerning the Hob-lane | in the present case thought that the mere presence This was a case stated by two justices of Middlesex under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43. The material facts of the case were as follows: The defendant, perpetual curate of St. John's, Wemby, was, on the 22nd Oct. last, sent for to visit a sick parishioner within that parish, and proceeded to do so in a pony carriage drawn by one pony, taking with him in his carriage his wife and two daughters. The whole journey could have been made through the defendant's own parish, but the distance was shortened about a mile by going into the turnpike road which was in another parish. On this turnpike road was the Sheepcote toll-gate, at which gate the complainant demanded payment of toll from the defendant. The defendant refused and claimed exemption under 3 Geo. 4, c. 126 s. 32, as being perpetual curate of the ecclesiastical district of St. John, Wemby, then going to visit a sick parishioner within his own district or parish. At the hearing before the justices, the complainant contended that even if the defendant were, under the circumstances, exempted from the payment of toll, the exemption could not be held to extend to the other persons (to wit, his wife and two daughters) who were with him in the carriage at the time. The defendant was convicted in a penalty of one shilling and costs, and at his request the present case was stated for the opinion of the court. 3 Geo. 4, c. 126, s. 32, enacts "that no toll shall be demanded or taken by virtue of this or any other Act or Acts of Parliament on any turnpike-road from any rector, vicar, or curate going to or returning from visiting any sick parishioner, or on other his parochial duty within his parish." Streeton, in support of the conviction, argued that the exemption given by 3 Geo. 4, c. 126, s. 32, to clergymen attending their parochial business was a personal one, and did not apply to any number of persons whom he might choose to take with him in his carriage for an airing. [COCKBURN, C. J.-The question is whether the immediate purpose of the journey was not that for which the statute gives him exemption. If the real, bona fide object of his journey was to visit a sick parishioner, can it be said that he may not take his wife and daughters along with him to enjoy the benefit of the drive?] On the same principle might he not take twenty, or any number of persons with him? [COCKBURN, C. J.-The justices in the carriage with the clergyman of his wife and two daughters was fatal to his claim of exemption, and that is certainly going too far. If the clergyman were in any way abusing the exemption given him by statute, that would be a different matter. BLACKBURN, J.-It would be a different thing if, whilst taking his wife and daughters out for an airing, the clergyman incidentally called on a sick parishioner; but here the justices find that it was exactly the other way.] Macnamara for the appellant was not called on. Conviction quashed. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. Reported by H. LEIGH and E. LUMLEY, Esqrs., Barristers-atLaw. May 23, 25, and 26, 1868. THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUGH AND QUEENSBERRY v. THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS. Thames Embankment Act 1862-Damage by works under-Removal of a jetty-Substitution of land for water frontage-Award under Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845—" Injuriously affecting" of premises -Principle of compensation-Loss of privacy and prospect-Evidence of umpire—Admissibility. The plaintiff is the proprietor, under a lease from the Crown, of a mansion, garden, and premises at Whitehall, called Montagu House, the back front of which, up to a recent period, abutted immediately upon the River Thames, which at high water flowed up to the garden wall. In the garden was a stone staircase, belonging to the plaintiff, leading down to a causeway, or jetty, which extended from high to low water-mark, and for upwards of sixty years past had belonged to and been repaired exclusively by the plaintiff, and his predecessors, occupants of Montagu House, and had been used, exclusively, by him and them, for landing coals, fruit, ice, vegetables, and other commodities for the use of the family and household, and for embarking luggage, &c., to go thence by river and sea, on the occasions of the plaintiff's journeys to Scotland. By the construction, by the defendants, of the works of the Thames Embankment, under the powers of their Act (the Thames Embankment Act 1862), this causeway was entirely destroyed, and the whole mass of water, which had thitherto flowed close up to the plaintiff's garden, and formed an access by water to his premises, was removed, and in its place an embankment, intended to be used as a public foot and carriage roadway, was substituted. The plaintiff gave notice to the defen dants that he claimed to be owner of the causeway, and of the mansion, and other hereditaments, as lessee under a certain lease and agreements, for a certain term in the said notice respectively specified, and that he also claimed to be entitled, as such lessee, to the use and enjoyment, during the said term, of a landing place there, and that he claimed compensation, to the amount of 10,000l., as well for the entering upon and taking of the said causeway, as for the removal, and obstruction of the use and enjoyment, of the said landing place, and for all other damage sustained by him by the depreciation of the said mansion and hereditaments, and by the otherwise injuriously affecting of the same, by the execution by the defendants of the said works autho rised by the said Act, and by the exercise of the powers thereof. The umpire, appointed under the Lands Clauses Consol dation Act 1845, to determine the matter of the said claim awarded, that there was due, from the defend its to the plaintiff, "the sum of 83251., as and for the Ex.] THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUGH AND QUEENSBERRY v. METROPOLITAN BOARD of Works. compensation for the interest of the plaintiff in the | said causeway, pier, and jetty, and for the shutting up of the said landing-place, and for the damage by the depreciation of the said mansion, &c., by the otherwise injuriously affecting the same by the execution, by the said board, of the said works, and by the exercise of the powers of the said Act.” In an action to recover the amount so awarded, to a declaration alleging the taking of the causeway, and the execution of the said works by the defendants, and that the plaintiff was entitled to a certain interest in the said causeway, and to compensation for the same being so taken, "and also for his interest in certain other lands and hereditaments, adjacent thereto, being injuriously affected by the execution of the said works," the defendants pleaded a plea, setting out the award, and alleging that the said sum was awarded as an indivisible sum in respect of (amongst other things) the substitution by the defendants, under the powers of their said Act, of the said highway or land carriage road, next to the plaintiff's said mansion and lands on the river side thereof, in lieu of the said navigable river: Held, on demurrer, that the plea was a bad plea. The taking away of the access by means of a navigable river to a person's premises, and substituting, in lieu thereof, a highway by land, is an "injurious affection' of the premises within the meaning of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. On the trial of the above action, at the close of the plain- The verdict was entered by direction of the Lord Chief [Ex. Per Martin and Channell, BB.-The evidence of the umpire was admissible for the purpose of showing the award to be void, and so far as it was relevant, it confirmed and supported the award. Per Bramwell, B.-The umpire's evidence was not ad- Per Kelly, C. B.-It is unnecessary to determine the be given This was an action brought by the Duke of Buccleugh against the Metropolitan Board of Works to recover a sum of 86817. 11§. 5d., viz., 83257, which had been awarded to him by an umpire, appointed under the provisions of the Thames Embankment Act 1862, and the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, for damages sustained by him as the owner of Montagu-house, Whitehall, by the works of the defendants, in constructing the Thames Embankment, at the back or river front of his Grace's premises, and 356l. 11s. 5d., the taxed costs of the reference and award pursuant to the master's allocation. The declaration in the first count charged that the defendants were the promoters of the undertaking mentioned in the Thames Embankment Act 1862, within the meaning of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, and were, as such promoters, authorised to execute the works described in the said first-mentioned Act, and to enter upon and take a certain causeway, pier, or jetty, situate in the parish of St. Mary's, Westminster, and the defendants did enter upon and take the said causeway, &c., accordingly, for the execution of the said works, and did execute the said works, and the said causeway, &c., so taken as aforesaid, and was plaintiff was entitled to a certain interest in the entitled to compensation for the same being so taken, and also for his interest in certain other lands and hereditaments adjacent thereto, being injuriously affected by the execution of the works, for which matters respectively the defendants have not made him compensation under the provisions of the several Acts in that behalf; and a question of disputed compensation arose thereon between the plaintiff and the defendants. And the plaintiff further says that the compensation claimed by him exceeded 50l., and that he desired to have the same settled by arbitration under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, and duly signified such his desire to the defendants at the behalf; and the said question was accordingly referred proper time and in the proper manner in that to arbitration, and for that purpose (the plaintiff and the defendants not having concurred in the appointment of a single arbitrator), the plaintiff duly nominated and appointed one Charles Lee as an arbitrator to whom the said dispute should be referred, and the defendants duly nominated and appointed one J. Oakley as the other arbitrator to whom the said dispute should be referred, and the said C. Lee and J. Oakley, as such arbitrators, and in accordance with the Lands Clauses Ex.] THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUGH AND QUEENSBERRY v. Metropolitan Board of Works. [Ex. Consolidation Act 1845 in that behalf, before | entering upon the matters referred to them, duly nominated and appointed Charles Edward Pollock, Esq., one of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law, to be their umpire to decide upon all matters on which they should or might differ, or which should be referred to such umpire under the provisions of the said Acts. And the said arbitrators differed respecting the said question so referred to them, and failed to make their award thereon in due time, and the said matters thereupon came to be determined by the said C. E. Pollock as such umpire. And the said C. E. Pollock, before entering into the consideration of any of the matters so referred to him, duly made and subscribed such declaration as is required by the said Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, which declaration was afterwards annexed to his award when made, and afterwards duly made his award in writing of and concerning the said matters so referred to him, and thereby awarded and determined that the amount of the said compensation so in dispute was and should be the sum of 83251. And the plaintiff says that he has done all things, &c., to entitle the plaintiff, &c., yet the defendants have not paid the same or any part thereof. By the second count the plaintiff repeated the several allegations in the first count, and further said that the sum so awarded was a greater sum than had been previously offered by the defendants, and that the costs of the said arbitration, &c., had been duly settled at 356/. 11s. 5d., and all things had happened, &c., but the defendants had not paid the same or any part thereof. The third count was for money payable by the defendants to the plaintiff for money awarded, &c., and for money paid by the plaintiff for the defendants at their request, and for money due on account stated. And the plaintiff claimed 10,000l. Pleas. 1 (to the first and second counts). A traverse of the defendants' entry upon the said causeway, pier, and jetty as alleged, and of the injuriously affecting of the plaintiff's interest in the said other lands and hereditaments, by the execution of the said works. 2 (further to the same counts). Traversing the plaintiff's title to or interest in the said causeway, &c., and his title to compensation for the same being taken, and denying the injuriously affecting of his interest in the said other lands, &c., and his title to compensation, &c. Plea 3 (further to the said first and second counts). That the said award in those counts mentioned and referred to was and is in the words and figures following, that is to say: To all to whom, &c., I, Charles Edward Pollock, Q. C., &c.. send greeting. Whereas the Metropolitan Board of Works, in exercise of the powers contained in The Thames Embankment Act 1862, entered upon and took and used a certain causeway, pier, or jetty, situate in the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster, in which the Most Noble Walter Francis, Duke of Buccleugh and Queenberry claimed to be interested as hereinafter mentioned, and shut up and obstructed the use and enjoyment of a landing place there, to which use and enjoyment the said duke was entitled as hereinafter mentioned. And whereas the said duke alleged that he had sustained damage by reason of the several premises, and also that he had sustained further damage by the depreciation of a certain mansion house, lands, tenements, and hereditaments belonging to him, and by the otherwise injuriously affecting the same by the execution by the said Metropolitan Board of Works, of the works authorised by the said Act, and by the exercise of the powers of the said Act. And whereas the said duke did by a notice in writing under his hand, dated 11th March 1867, give notice to the said Metropolitan Board of Works that he was the owner of the said causeway, pier, or jetty, and also of the said mansion house, and other lands, tenements, and hereditaments as lessee thereof, under or by virtue of a lease, dated 19th April 1810, granted by His late Majesty King George III to the Most Noble Henry, Duke of Buccleugh, and his trustee, and of two agreements, dated respectively 4th Feb. 1854 and 26th Oct. 1858, and made between the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, the Hon. C. A. Gore, and the said Duke of Buccleugh and Queensberry for a term whereof at the time of the said entry, and taking, and of the said injuriously affecting, ninety Then follow recitals of the defendants' disputing the amount of compensation claimed; the appointment by the duke, pursuant to the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, of an arbitrator on his behalf; the appointment by the defendants, pursuant to the same Act, of an arbitrator on their behalf; the appointment by the said arbitrators, pursuant to the same Act, of the said C. E. Pollock, Q. C. as umpire; and the disagreement of the arbitrators respecting the matters referred to them, whereby the same duly came before the said umpire for determination, and then it continued as follows: Now know ye, that I, the said C. E. Pollock, having taken upon myself the burden of the said reference, and having before entering upon the same, &c., duly made and subscribed, &c., the declaration required by the said Acts, &c., and having been attended by the parties and their witnesses, and having heard and considered the allegations and proofs of the respective parties, and having viewed the said mansionhouse, lands, and tenements, do make this my award in writing of and concerning the premises, that is to say-I award, order, and determine that there is due from the said Metropolitan Board of Works to the said Duke of Buccleugh and Queensberry, the sum of 83251., as and for the com-, pensation for the interest of the said duke in the said causeway, pier, and jetty, and for the shutting up of the said landing place, and for the damage by the depreciation of the said mansion-house lands, tenements, and hereditaments, by the otherwise injuriously affecting the same, by the execution by the said board of the said works, and by the exercise of the powers of the said Act. As witness, &c., 6th Aug. 1867. Averment: That the said plaintiff was not interested, nor had he ever any interest whatever in, nor was he entitled to any compensation for or in respect of, the said causeway, &c., or in the said landing-place in the said award, and the notice herein respectively mentioned, and that the said sum of 83251. so awarded as aforesaid, was and is awarned as one entire, unseparated, and indivisible sum of money, and is awarded as such for and in respect of (amongst other matters) the aforesaid supposed interest of the plaintiff of and in the said causeway, pier, or jetty and landing-place, and for compensation for and in respect of the same. Plea 4. Further, to the same (1st and 2nd counts): That the said award in these counts of the declaration mentioned and referred to was and is in the words and figures in the said third plea above set forth, and that the plaintiff was interested in, and entitled to, the said mansion house, lands, tenements, and hereditaments, in the said notice of the 11th day of March 1867, in the said award partly recited, under and by virtue of the several leases and agreements in that notice mentioned and referred to: and that at and prior to the time of the passing and carrying into effect of The Thames Embankment Act 1862, the garden and pleasure grounds of the said mansion house abutted next upon and were contiguous to the river Thames, at a part of the said river where the same is navigable, and a common public Queen's highway by water for all the liege subjects of the realm, and that under and by virtue and in exercise of the rights, powers, duties, and authorities by the said Act given to, conferred upon, and vested in the defendants; they have embanked the foreshore of the said river immediately in front of the said mansion house, lands, tenements, and hereditaments, and have thereby reclaimed from the said river and the foreshore thereof the piece of ground immediately facing the plaintiff's said mansion house and lands on the river side thereof, and have built a wall to such embankment, and have put and placed a land public highway or carriage road thereon between the plaintiff's said mansion house and lands and the said navigable river, and so that there is immediate access from the plaintifs said mansion house and lands to the said road or public highway by land, and thence to the river, instead and in lieu of the former direct access to the said navigable river from the said mansion house ant lands, without any intervening road or highway; and the plaintiff alleged that by reason of the defendants making the said public road and highway by land con Ex.] THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUGH AND QUEENSBERRY v. METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS. [Ex. the construction and use of such embankment and highway, as depriving the plaintiff's house of part of its amenity as a residence; the construction of the embankment as injuriously or private right he might have to the river or foreshore beyond the rest of the Queen's subjects. The following are the dates and particulars of the lease and agreements for lease under which the Duke of Buccleugh holds the premises in question: tiguous to the river boundary of his mansion house, and lands, and cut off and excluding the former direct access to the said navigable river, and by removing the said navigable river as a boundary to his said mansion house, and pre-affecting the plaintiff's house, independently of any separato mises, and by substituting a public roadway or land carriage-way in lieu thereof, the defendants had, in exercise and pursuance of the said Act and of the powers thereby conferred, injuriously affected his said mansion house, lands, tenements, and hereditaments, and his interest therein; and the plaintiff claimed, in and under the said notice of the 11th March 1867, compensation in respect thereof. And the defendants further say that the said sum of 83251., awarded as aforesaid, was and is awarded as one entire unseparated and indivisible sum of money for and in respect of (among other things) the mere fact of the defendants having, under the powers and provisions of the said Act, placed and substituted, in manner aforesaid, the said highway or land carriage road next to the plaintiff's said mansion house, and lands on the riverside thereof, in lieu of the said navigable river Thames. Plea 5 (to 1st and 2nd counts) repeated the allegation of plea 4 down to and inclusive of this, viz., that the defendants made the public road, &c., adjoining to plaintiffs mansion on the river side thereof and cut off the former access to the said river, and further, that the plaintiff alleged that by reason of such road he should, in order to preserve the privacy of the said house and lands, &c., be forced to build a high wall to shut off the road and carriage way therefrom, and thereby the view and prospect from the said house would be diminished; and further, that by reason of the embankment wall built by the defendants, the view and prospect towards the river, from the said mansion, &c., would also be diminished; and by reason of the premises the amenity of the plaintiff's said mansion, &c., would be injuriously affected; and further, that the plaintiff claimed, in and under the said notice, compensation in respect of the matters in this plea mentioned; and further, that the said 83251. so awarded as aforesaid, was awarded as one entire, &c., sum in respect of (inter alia) the matters in this plea mentioned. Plea 6 (to the same counts): That the award was in the words, &c., in plea 3 set forth, and that the said house, lands, &c., and the plaintiff's interest in the same were not, nor were any of them, or any part thereof damaged, depreciated, or injuriously affected, in any manner by the execution by the defendants of the said works, and the exercise of the powers of the said Act, nor was the plaintiff entitled to compensation in respect thereof, as alleged; and the sum awarded was awarded as one entire, &c., sum, in respect of the said supposed damage, depreciation, and otherwise injuriously affecting of the said mansion, &c., and the plaintiff's interest as in the said award mentioned. Plea 7 (to the same counts): That the sum awarded was and is one entire sum, &c., and includes damges and compensation for matters and things in respect of which neither the said arbitrators nor their umpire had any power or right to award or assess damages or compensation, and over and in respect of which neither of them had any jurisdiction. Plea 8 (to the same counts). Nul tiel award. indebted. The plaintiff took issue upon all the above pleas, in addition to which there was a Demurrer and joinder in demurrer to plea 4, a ground of demurrer marked in the margin being that inasmuch as part of the lands and hereditaments of the plaintiff was entered upon and taken by the defendants, he was entitled to have compensation for such exercise by the defendants of the powers of the said Act of Parliament as was mentioned in that plea. The following particulars were delivered by the defendants in conformity with a judge's order dated 24th Dec. 1867. The sum awarded includes damages and compensation for, among others, the following matters and things, as to which there was no power or jurisdiction to give the same, and which are not legally the subject of compensation, namely, the interference with the water, or river highway; the substitution of a land highway in lieu of a water highway, as a boundary of the plaintiff's house, under the powers of the Thames Embankment Act 1862; the loss of the former view from the river front of the plaintiff's mansion house, caused by or consequent on the construction of the embankment and works; By an indenture of lease dated the 19th April 1810 the said messuage, or mansion, house, gardens, and pleasure-ground, &c., called Montagu-house, and particularly described in the said indenture of lease and in the plan thereof delineated in the margin of the same indenture, together with all courts, areas, vaults, cellars, ways, passages lights, easements, waters, watercourses, profits, commodities, advantages, and appurtenances whatever to the said piece or parcel of ground, capital messuage, buildings, hereditaments and premises, or any part thereof, belonging or appertaining, or therewith, or with any part thereof, held, used, occupied, or enjoyed, or accustomed, reputed, deemed, taken, or known, as part or parcel thereof, or as thereunto belonging, were demised by the Crown to Henry, Duke of Buccleugh, and his trustee, their executors, &c., from the 5th Jan. 1806 for the term of sixty-two years, at the rent for the first four years, ending 5th Jan. 1810, of 3031. 4s. per annum; for eight years thence next of 75l. 16s. per annum; for one quarter of a year, ending 5th April 1818, of 148. 1s. 6d.; for forty-nine years thence next of 592/. 6s. per annum; and for the last three-quarters of a year of 4441. 4s. 6d. By an agreement dated 4th Feb. 1854 between Her Majesty the Queen, the Hon. C. A. Gore, Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and the Duke of Buccleugh and Queensberry (the plaintiff), reciting the said lease of 1810, and that the duke was desirous of surrendering the said term of sixty-two years, or the residue thereof, and of obtaining a new lease, to be granted to him of all the same premises, or the site thereof, for the term of ninety-nine years from the 5th Jan. 1855, at and under and subject to the rents, covenants and agreements therein mentioned, and that the said C. A. Gore, with consent of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, had agreed to accept such surrender, and to grant such new lease as aforesaid: It was witnessed that, for the considerations mentioned, the said C. A. him by the architect for the time being of his deGore thereby agreed, on a certificate being given to partment, that 20,000l. at the least had been expended in and about the rebuilding, alterations, additions, and improvements of the said messuage or mansion house, tenement, and buildings in a satisfactory manner, to accept a surrender of the said term of sixty-two years in the said messuage, &c., and to grant a new lease of the said ground, messuage, and buildings, and of the intended new buildings thereon, with the appurtenances, unto the said duke, his executors, &c., for ninety-nine years, from the 5th Jan. 1855, at the yearly rent of 8501. And the duke covenanted thereby to complete the rebuilding, &c., before the 5th Jan. 1858, and lay out the said sum of 20,000l. at the least. By an agreement between the same parties, dated 26th Oct. 1858, the time above-mentioned was extended from 5th Jan. 1858 to the 5th Jan. 1861. The following is the notice of claim and arbitration served on the board on the 14th Feb. 1867 by Messrs. Nicholl, Burnett, and Newman, the duke's solicitors. To the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whereas, in the exercise of the powers contained in the Thames Embankment Act 1862, you, the Metropolitan Board of Works, have entered upon, taken, and used a certain causeway, pier, or jetty, situate in the parish of St. Margaret, in the city and liberties of Westminster, in which the most noble Walter |