1836. The Governors where the property lies than a losing occupation, which it is quite certain does not affect the question of liability? of the Poor of The same rule must of course apply to every species of the City of property. We are, therefore, upon the whole, of opinion BRISTOL that the buildings so held by the plaintiffs in the parish of St. Philip and St. Jacob, were ratable to the relief of the poor of that parish, and that a verdict, according to the leave reserved, should be entered for the defendants. v. WAIT and others. Rule absolute. Act, persons having an estate or inter The KING . The LONDON DOCK COMPANY, in the matter of WILLIAM HARTREE and ANN LAMMIMAN. Under a Dock To a mandamus requiring the Company to issue a precept to the sheriff, to summon a jury to assess compensation to W. H. and A. L., under 9 Geo. 4, c. cxvi. for injuries althan from year leged to have been done by the Company to their property, the Company made a special return; and upon a motion to quash the return for insufficiency, the Court directed the facts to be stated in a special case. est, not less to year, in houses, &c., who shall be injured in such estate or interest, by any of the works au thorized by the compensated by the Dock Company :Held, that the Company are By sect. 2 of 9 Geo. 4, c. cxvi. "for consolidating and amending the several acts of parliament for making the act, are to be London Docks," the London Dock Company, established by virtue of 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. xlvii., and the proprietors of the joint stock of the Company, were incorporated by the name of "The London Dock Company," " for the purpose of maintaining, extending, making, &c. all such basins, docks, quays, &c. as had already been constructed and were then existing under the authority of the previous acts, or which might thereafter be constructed under the authority of that act, and for other the purposes thereinafter not liable for compensation to the owner of a house, occupied as a tavern, the pecuniary value of which is lessened by reason of a By mentioned." By sect. 46, the Company were authorized to destruction of make an additional entrance to the docks at Shadwell. the neighbourhood, by the sect. 50, they were empowered to treat for the lands comworks, duly authorized, of the Company-where the house, though less valuable for a tavern of shop, is not rendered less valuable as a private residence; and semble, that the principle is true generally, without regard to the nature of the resulting inquiry. prised in the first schedule. By sect. 54, the owners and occupiers of premises specified in the first schedule, which should be purchased or taken by virtue of the act, are authorized to demand compensation for the loss of the goodwill of any trade carried on upon the premises. Sect. 57 gave a compulsory power of purchasing the lands com prised in the first schedule. Sect. 81 gave a power (but not a compulsory one) of purchasing the premises in the second schedule. Sect. 84 authorized the Company to stop up, use, and inclose or alter, streets, roads, lanes, ways, &c. within the limits of the lands which should be taken or used under the authority of that act, and comprised in the first schedule to the act (except New Gravel Lane.) Sect. 87 empowered the Company to make and maintain sluices, bridges, roads, and other requisite matters and things on or leading to or communicating with the said docks, &c. of the Company. Sect. 89 provided and enacted, that persons having an estate or interest not less than a tenancy from year to year, in any houses, lands, or hereditaments, who should be injured in their said estate or interest by the making of any such cut, sluices, bridge, road, or other work, should be compensated by the Company, and such compensation should, in case of disagreement, be ascertained by a jury, in the manner therein directed. William Hartree and Ann Lammiman had estates greater than a tenancy from year to year in a certain public house called the Wheatsheaf, in Star Street, Shadwell, in the county of Middlesex, which Joseph Lammiman, deceased, had occupied, from 1811 until his decease in 1827, since which time Ann Lammiman had been, and she now is, in the actual occupation thereof, and has carried on, and still carries on the trade or business of a victualler therein. The messuage is included in the first schedule to the act, and is situate at the corner of Star Street and of another street called Lower Turning-which is a continuation from the westward of a street called Milk Yard, running into Lower Gravel Lane, and from eastward of another street 1836. The KING v. The London Dock Company, in re HARTREE and another. 1836. The KING ບ. The called Brewhouse Yard, running into Lower Shadwell. Four streets ran into Milk Yard, Lower Turning, and Brewhouse Yard, from Shadwell High Street. The new London Dock cut and works of the Company occupy the site of BrewCompany, house Yard, and run parallel to Lower Turning and Milk in re HARTREE Yard, and thereby in effect stop up the eastern extremity of Lower Turning, and the four streets leading into Shadwell High Street; but the cut is not, nor are any of the works executed by the Company as aforesaid, in any way contiguous to the said messuage. and another. The Company, in execution of the powers vested in them by 9 Geo. 4, c. cxvi. purchased a great number of houses, &c. specified in the first schedule to the act, the same being such as the directors of the Company judged necessary or proper to be purchased for the purpose of making the said additional entrance, or of completing, enlarging, and improving the docks and the entrances thereto, and the works connected with the same, and for other the purposes of the act; and in order thereto the said directors have taken and used the lands, &c. and pulled down many of the houses, &c. so purchased; and have also made the additional entrance to the docks from the Thames at Shadwell, the same consisting of a cut, with locks and other works necessary to carry into effect the purposes of the act. In consequence of the Company's having pulled down such houses and buildings under the last London Dock Act as aforesaid, aud destroyed the streets, &c. which comprised the same, Ann Lammiman, as the occupier of the public house, lost several customers, who were inhabitants of houses so pulled down, frequenting the said public house, and by reason of such pulling down of houses, the neighbourhood of Star Street is become less populous than it used to be, and in consequence thereof, and of the stopping up of the streets above mentioned, part of the casual and local custom of the public house has become lost, inasmuch as no passengers from those streets can now pass directly into Star Street, and the passengers along Star Street in either direction have become much less numerous; and by these means the profits of the business carried on at the public house have been diminished, and the goodwill of the trade lessened in value, and the pecuniary value of the premises either to sell or to let as a public house or shop, but not as a private residence, is also less. The said additional entrance was carefully and properly made by the Company, and the several cuts and works herein before mentioned were all necessary and proper for the completion thereof, and for carrying into effect the purposes of the said act of parliament; and in executing the same, the Company have done as little injury to the property and interests of other parties as possible. If under the circumstances the Court shall be of opinion that the injuries above mentioned, or any of them, entitle the owners or occupier of the said messuage, public house, or premises, to a compensation from the Company, under 9 Geo. 4, c. cxvi. s. 89, above mentioned, or any other of the provisions of the said act, a peremptory mandamus is to issue for compensation for such injuries. If the Court shall be of a contrary opinion, the rule for quashing the return is to be discharged. F. Kelly, for the prosecutors of the writ. The question is, whether the prosecutors are "persons having an estate or interest, not less than a tenancy from year to year, in any houses, lands or hereditaments," who are "injured in their estate or interest by the making of any such cut, sluice, bridge, road, or other work," made by the Company under the authority of 9 Geo. 4, c. cxvi., so as to be entitled to compensation under the 89th section. That the estate of the prosecutor is sufficient in point of duration is clear, and it is submitted that the diminution in value of the applicant's premises is such an injury as the 89th section contemplates. By the works of the Company several thoroughfares leading to the prosecutor's premises have been stopped, whereby the value of those premises as a public house or shop is diminished. [Coleridge, J. Section 54, 1836. The KING v. The London Dock Company, in re HARTREE and another. 1836. The KING บ. The London Dock Company, in re HARTREE and another. which provides remedies to persons whose premises are taken by the Company, gives compensation for good-will. In this clause, which relates to premises not taken by the Company, good-will is not mentioned. Your claim seems to be for an injury to the good-will.] The claim is in respect of the deterioration of the premises as a public-house or shop. As the premises have hitherto been used as a public house only, it is only as such that they could enjoy any good-will, which in fact attaches to the trade independently of the house, and may be severed from the locality. As a shop, generally, no good-will can attach to the house. The value which these premises formerly possessed as a public house or shop, beyond that which it would have possessed as a private residence, must have arisen from the conveniency for trade, which it derived from the numerous thoroughfares through which access was obtained to it. The meaning of the statement in the special case is, that if the premises had been put up to auction before the destruction of the thoroughfares, a higher price would have been obtained, owing to the conveniency for trade, than could now be produced. Had this act of parliament not passed, the Company would have been liable to an action at the suit of the applicants, as well as to an indictment for a nuisance, if they had obstructed these highways, although as owners of the adjoining lands they might certainly have pulled down the houses upon it, and thus have destroyed the neighbourhood, without being liable to be sued for the injury which the applicants would have sustained thereby. By this act the Company are authorized to stop up these highways; but it is submitted that the legislature, at the same time that it gave to the Company these extensive powers, intended by sect. 89 to provide a remedy for persons situated as the prosecutors are, in lieu of the right of action which they would otherwise have had. It is difficult to see to what cases this clause can apply, if not to injuries such as those which form the subject of the present com. plaint. The obstruction of the highways leading to the premises is an injury to the " estate or interest" of the pro |