Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 63, 1830-1831. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
Die Mercurii, 7 °Septembris 1831.
Harris v. Kemble et al.
Copy of Record of Proceedings in the King's Bench (Ireland) against D. O'Connell et al. to be printed.
Ordered, That the Copy of the Record of the Proceedings in the Court of King's Bench in Ireland against Daniel O'Connell Esquire, and against Daniel O'Connell Esquire, and others, in the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, together with the Date and respective Dates of such Record or Records, delivered to the House on the 18th Day of August last, be printed.
Bp. Cork's Bill.
The Earl of Shaftesbury reported from the Lords Committees, to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act to repeal an Act passed in the Parliament of Ireland in the Thirty-second Year of the Reign of King George the Third, relating to a Portion of the Lands of Ballinaspeg, near the City of Cork, belonging to the See of Cork; and to enable the Bishops of that See to demise the same, under certain Restrictions," was committed; That they had considered the said Bill, and examined the Allegations thereof, which were found to be true; that the Parties concerned had given their Consents to the Satisfaction of the Committee; and that the Committee had gone through the Bill, and made several Amendments thereto."
Leys & Co. v. Ld. Forbes et al:
After hearing Counsel, on Thursday and Friday last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Leys, Masson and Company, Manufacturers in Aberdeen; complaining of an Interlocutor of the Court of Session in Scotland, of the Second Division, of the 11th of March 1831; and praying, "That the same might be reversed, varied or amended, or that the Appellants might have such other Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, should seem meet;" as also upon the Answer of James Ochonchar Lord Forbes, John Farquharson Esquire, of Haughton, Hugh Gordon Esquire, of Manar, Sir John Forbes of Craigievar, Baronet, and the Trustees of the late Sir William Forbes of Craigievar, Baronet, put in to the said Appeal; and due Consideration had this Day of what was offered on either Side in this Cause:
Interlocutor Affirmed, with a Declaration, & Cause remitted.
It is Declared, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, That the Meaning and Intention of the Issues directed in this Case were to raise the Question whether the Canal and Dam Dyke of the Appellants are or are not injurious to the Respondents Fishings, as well in the actual State of the River, as after, by lawful Means, that State shall be changed by the Removal or Regulation of other Dykes in the River Don in the Proceedings mentioned, so that the Question in the Issues must be answered in the Affirmative if the Jury find either that there is now any Injury in the actual State, or that there would be Injury in the State so altered, or that the Canal and Dyke are or would be injurious in both States of the River; and, with this Declaration, it is Ordered and Adjudged, That the Interlocutor complained of in the said Appeal be, and the same is hereby Affirmed: And it is further Ordered, That the Cause be remitted back to the Court of Session in Scotland, to proceed further therein, as shall be consistent with this Judgment and as shall be just.