p.1 str. Islander takes large shipment of grain etc. to Malta, for Bruce Township. [Kincardine Commonwealth]
Friday, May 7th - Anglin v. The Grand Trunk Railway
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is the owner of a wharf in the lower bay of this city, at the foot of Wellington street, to test the right of the Railway Company to obstruct the harbor by carrying their road across its waters, and also to recover damages for the injury inflicted thereby.
Mr. O'Reilly opened the case for pltff.
The judge said that the right of the railway company to build could not be tried in this way; that question could only be brought up by indictment.
Charles Gay examined by Mr. Smith - Was formerly proprietor of the property in question, and sold the lower half of the wharf to Mr. Anglin; since that time Mr. A. has carried on a large lumbering business; he owns large mills on the canal; vessels were in the habit of coming to the wharf for lading; Mr. Anglin has an interest in several vessels, some of which go down the canal; the G.T.R. Co. occupied for a time the plaintiff's premises for shipping purposes, many of their materials being landed there from boats and schooners. [A lease dated 6th Sept., 1853, from plaintiff to Peto, Brassey and Betts, was then put in to show the value of the property; it was leased at 150 Pds. per annum]. An embankment has been put across the waters of the bay, in front of the wharf, cutting off the communication, and entirely obstructing access thereto; for all practical purposes the wharf is entirely useless; if the drawbridge was completed, which it is not, a sailing vessel could not get in unless towed by a steamer. [Mr. Bell said they could not claim for injury after the commencement of the action, which was in December, but his lordship was not inclined to agree with him; he thought there must be one finding for all.] The property cannot now be rented; witness has advertised part of the same property, but cannot get a bidder; the drawbridge is erected so near shoal water that a vessel could not safely get in; if it had been made in deeper water, it might have answered the purpose better.
Cross-examined by Mr. Campbell - Have brought no action against the Grand Trunk Railroad as yet; have no connection with the case; the property originally cost about 50 Pds., it was then all water; could not tell what the wharf cost, it was building for a period of twenty years; don't think the Company built an inch to the wharf while they had it; have seen scows inside the embankment, but scows can go where schooners cannot, because they can poll in; the opening of the drawbridge appears to be wide enough to admit vessels; don't know the depth of water.
Francis Weyms - to Mr. O'Reilly - I know the inner harbor of Kingston for 25 years, and know Anglin's wharf, and have seen large quantities of lumber shipped from there in steamers and schooners; I have seen large schooners landing railway iron at the wharf while in the possession of the Railway contractors; there is a shoal from the government yard extending downward, so that vessels must go lower down to be able to get in; the drawbridge is too high up; I have not seen a single vessel inside the embankment this spring; there are two openings for a swing bridge, 38 feet wide, and a pier 12 feet wide dividing them; in making the embankment clay was first put in, and stones then thrown in; the washing of the clay by the waves would have the effect of spreading it and shoaling the water; the main drain from Princess Street empties into the enclosed piece of water; this would have the effect in course of time of closing it up.
To Mr. Ross - Steamers could get in now as readily as before; have seen vessels sail to the wharf, and have also seen them pole in.
Charles Greenwood, examined by Mr. Kirkpatrick - I bought a cargo of wood at Anglin's wharf last autumn, in the early part of October; the vessel of 150 tons worked from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. to get in to Anglin's wharf to get it, but failed in consequence of the obstruction by the Railway; the wind was blowing fresh at the time; the next morning made another attempt, and again failed, and gave it up; from sounding at the wharf found there was enough to load two-thirds full.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bell - That was the only experience I had of getting to Anglin's wharf.
To Mr. Smith - If the vessel had made fast to the central pier, she would have drifted down to the track and got ashore.
Wm. Doran - I am master of a vessel; I have known the inner harbor some six years; I have been in four vessels, the Bond, Blood, Forwarder and Mary; I have brought 150,000 feet of lumber with the Bond from that wharf, and have gone there steadily for two years; at that time there was about 8 feet water; large quantities of lumber were placed upon the wharf; I have taken three cargoes in a fortnight; there would be some difficulty in getting a vessel now to the wharf, before I could get in without any bother; couldn't now get in at night at all, excepting by groping; nor could a vessel get in with a stiff breeze.
James M. Dunlop - I have frequently been at Anglin's wharf, and know that formerly there was no difficulty of getting to it; I would not like to take a vessel through the opening of the embankment as it now is; I know that Mr. Anglin requires the premises the present year for the purpose of his business; I look upon the drawbridge as a permanent obstruction; I would have taken Mr. Gray's premises this year but for the difficulty of access; from the two mills with which Mr. Anglin is connected I should think he must ship five or six millions a year.
To Mr. Campbell - In a calm it would occupy but little more time than before.
Alexander Smith - I have been on steamers and sailing vessels; I consider the approach to Anglin's wharf destroyed except in calm weather; previously there was no difficulty in getting to it.
To Mr. Bell - Mr. Anglin has been transferring lumber from his upper wharf to the wharf in question; it was taken by cart; I don't know of his taking any of it by water.
Archibald Smith - I am harbor master; I have had a good deal of experience of the harbor in the sailing of vessels, both on the lake and the canal; I think if the opening in the embankment were placed lower down, vessels could get in more easily, in consequence of there being a shoal off the government stables, opposite the opening; I consider the obstruction a permanent injury to the property.
John McArthur - I have been employed in steam navigation for 20 years; it would not be easy to tow a vessel through the draw-bridge of the embankment; there is danger in all cases of passing through bridges.
Thomas Polley, a mariner for 20 years, testified that he had seen the opening in the embankment, and thought it a very difficult matter to gain access to Mr. Anglin's wharf, which he considered to be permanently injured.
William Allen and Edward Wilmot were also called to prove the injury plaintiff had suffered, and this closed the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Bell submitted that by the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act it was a matter to be submitted to arbitration. The words of the act were that all lands taken for or injuriously affected by the road were to be a subject of arbitration. His lordship noted the objection. The witnesses were then called.
Thomas Taylor - I was one of the party engaged in taking soundings, for the purpose of ascertaining the depth of water to sink the cribs. The openings in the embankment are 39 and 38 1/2 feet; the water there is as deep as at any other place; there is a temporary arrangement for opening the bridge, which can be done in a very short time; I don't know why this particular place was selected for the drawbridge, but I am of opinion it is the best place.
To Mr. O'Reilly - The order to fix the site for the bridge was given just before was filled up to the place.
Manuel Gallagher - I am in the employ of the railway contractors, Morton and Dickson; the cribs were began in August; I helped to select the site for the bridge; it was selected because it was opposite the slip and the nearest wharf; I took soundings yesterday, and I took them before; drawing a line from the opening to a line with the Cataraqui bridge I found not less than 9 feet; when we sunk the cribs provision was made for an opening so that boats might pass; I saw four scows pass through, which were said to belong to Anglin; the men told me that Anglin had rented his other wharf, and was going to remove his business to the lower wharf.
To Mr. Smith - Men are supposed to watch the bridge to open for vessels requiring to pass; have not seen a single sailing vessel pass through last fall or this spring; the embankment was a benefit to some.
Robert Gaskin - I have been a mariner for 40 years; I consider that a vessel would have no difficulty to get in to Anglin's wharf, for a rope could be carried from Cataraqui bridge to the railway bridge, and hauled upon; I consider it a great benefit to Anglin's property; I would not charge any more freight in consequence.
Wm. McKee - I own a scow and sail it; at the time of the building of the G.T. Railroad I carried freight for Peto, Brassey & Co. to Anglin's wharf; at that time there was not more than six feet at the outside of the wharf; no lake vessel drawing 9 or 10 feet could go within the railroad track; in going through Cataraqui bridge sail is only carried at the risk of the vessel; I would make no difference in charge for carrying from Anglin's wharf now than before the track was built.
Frances Tracey, foreman of the blacksmiths for Peto & Co., said the water at Anglin's wharf in 1857 was 8 to 9 feet deep; it was rarely that large vessels came in, when they did they had to lighten; they generally came in a straight line across from Cataraqui bridge; if they went higher up they struck aground.
To Mr. Bell - The vessels came in at the eastern end of the wharf.
James Holland - Was in the habit of going frequently to Anglin's wharf in his own vessel, drawing 4 1/2 to 5 feet; had to haul in as often as sailed in; thought the present bridge would make no difference.
Donald Cameron, a mariner, thought the difference, owing to the embankment, would be very little, because the class of vessels going to Anglin's were very small and easily handled.
John Goodearl, Robert Kent, John Harris and John McHenry gave similar testimony to the facilities of reaching the wharf being as good as formerly, and that no increase of freight could be caused thereby.
Thomas Overend said the property was offered to him 20 years ago for 30 Pds. in store pay.
Henry Woodhouse said that scows frequently passed in and out at the opening, taking lumber from Anglin's upper wharf; there was never any delay in passing them through.
To Mr. O'Reilly - I did not see any lumber taken out.
Mr. Campbell then addressed the jury for the defence, Mr. Smith replied, and the case was then left for the jury.
The verdict was not given in time for publication.
Messrs. O'Reilly, Smith & Kirkpatrick were engaged for the plaintiff; Messrs. Ross & Campbell for the defence.
Anglin v. Grand Trunk Railroad Co. - The Jury in this case returned a verdict for plaintiff and damages 141 Pds.
p.2 Assizes - O'Neil vs Baker et al - This was an action brought by plaintiffs against defendants, who it is alleged, were the owners of the steamer Europa, for not delivering a quantity of sugar which had been shipped from Kingston to Port Darlington in the month of December, 1855.
Capt. Harrison, examined by Mr. O'Reilly - I know the defendants; the Europa was run on their account in 1855; I was then her commander; she was not registered.
To Mr. Kirkpatrick - There is a stock list; I don't know that all the defendants' names are on that list; Mr. Buchanan, I believe, is a stock-holder in the Europa, and so is Mr. Osborne; I don't know whether Mr. Wood is a stockholder or not; Colin Perry's name was on the stock list, and not John Perry's; I am not positive as to Mr. Cumming being a shareholder; I commanded the Europa in 1855; she was run on account of her stockholders.
Richard O'Neill - My brother John purchased a quantity of sugar from Mr. Hickey; he paid for it; it was put on board the Europa for Darlington, but never reached that place; I saw it on board; I made diligent search all round for the sugar, but did not find it; the weight of the sugar was 24 cwt. 3 qr. net.
To Mr. Kirkpatrick - The sugar belonged to my brother the plaintiff; the freight was not paid here; Mr. O'Reilly got the bill of lading; there was nothing unusual in it; it was drawn in the usual form.
James McCullan - wharfinger of Darlington - Remembered the Europa arriving in December 1855; she stopped at Darlington, but did not leave off any sugar; Mr.O'Neill came frequently to enquire for sugar, but did not get it, and said he would have to see about it.
To Mr. Kirkpatrick - I believe the Europa stopped at Port Hope on that trip; Mr. O'Neill has a house there; I did not hear whether the sugar had been left there.
Thomas Erley, examined, said - I was a clerk of Mr. Hickey's in 1855; sugar was from 60 s. to 65 s. per cwt.
Verdict for the plaintiff, $228.54, against Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Osborne; and verdict for defendants, Perry and Wood.
O'Reilly and Macarow for plaintiff; Thos. Kirkpatrick for defendants.
Beautiful Sight - About noon today, near 50 upward bound vessels presented themselves to view off Sandwich Point, just below the city, and filling up the stream to its entire width. They had all canvass spread, and presented a truly charming and beautiful sight, one very rarely witnessed in our river marine. [Detroit Adv.]
p.4 A Direct Trade with the West Indies - letter to editor (2nd by this author) saying port of Kingston admirably suited to become the sugar emporium for Canada. (a full column)