own ground, and the Church for ever disabled to [20] make leases of Jarrowslake, as they have done for many years, and incapable either of hindering the tides overflowing more of their ground, or preventing damages to the port and haven, by the waters overflowing Jarrowslake, which must be whilst it lies uninclosed, and this upon one single trial by a foreign jury: and though the respondents may insist upon another trial, had about twenty years since, yet the same was upon a different case, and between other persons, and appellants no parties, and by a Buckingham jury, wholly unacquainted with the place. And appellants further insisted, that this verdict would be an evidence, not only against the appellants right to the erection and usage of ballast wharfs for salt ships at any time hereafter, in any other part of their said manor, but also against the antient undoubted right and present usage at Mildam Key, and other places already built within the manor; so that salt ships must either pay duty to the respondents, or sail many miles up the river to the town keys, to the great discouragements of the salt trade at Shields, and prejudice of the Church's interest; and that appellants right could not, nor ever can be, determined upon this bill and proceedings in the Exchequer; and that this decree wholly deprives appellants from all possibility of recovering, and even from trying their right; and the corporation of Newcastle hath a very great revenue, and a sufficient recompence for preserving this port, by impositions and customs on goods and merchandizes imported and exported.
The Respondents made this Case: That they are an ancient corporation, and have held the Town of Newcastle, the port and haven there, from a place in the sea called Sparrhawke, to a place in the river Tyne called Hedwynstreams, and have the conservatorship of the river; the sole power of erecting and licensing ballast shores and keys thereon, and holding a Court of Record for the Conservation thereof, before the Mayor and some of the Aldermen, time out of mind; and that such privileges have been confirmed to the Corporation by divers ancient grants from the Crown, under the yearly fee farm rent of 100l.
That never any ballast shore or key, though not prejudicial to the river, navigation and trade, was erect-[21]-ed on the said river of Tyne, without the license of the said Corporation.
That about 30 years ago, Sir Charles Adderly and John Crooke, Esq. tenants under the then Dean and Chapter of Durham, of a great piece of ground called Jarrowslake, (the place in question) attempted to build a ballast sewer or key, but were obstructed by the Corporation, as it would endanger the navigation of the said river, be mischievous to the bar of Tinmouth, dangerous to ships and mens lives, and destructive to trade; and thereupon Adderley and Crooke, as also the said Corporation, petitioned his late Majesty, King Charles the second, in Council; and after hearings at the Council Board, it was ordered in Council that a trial should be had at the Exchequer bar, by a special jury of the county of Bucks, upon this issue, viz. whether the Dean and Chapter of Dunham could lawfully erect and use ballast keys, and wharfs, at Jarrowslake, without the license of the Mayor and Burgesses of Newcastle? and in Easter Term, 1669, a trial was accordingly had before the late Lord Chief Baron Hale upon the said issue, wherein William Blackett, Esq. (on the behalf of the said Corporation) was plaintiff, and the said Crooke (on the part of the then Dean and Chapter) was defendant; and after a long trial and full evidence given on both sides, the jury gave a verdict, viz. that a ballast key could not lawfully be erected and used at Jarrowslake, without the license of the Mayor and Burgesses of Newcastle. Not satisfied with which trial, Adderley and Crooke again petitioned the King and Council, that it might be referred to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen of the city of London, to examine and report concerning the alleged public utility of such ballast wharf, which was accordingly ordered; and 27th October, 1670, the then Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen made their report to his said Majesty in Council, and certified that, having beard council and examined witnesses on both sides, they found that the erecting a ballast sewer at Jarrowslake aforesaid, would prove destructive to trade in general, dangerous both to shipping, and mens lives, would enhance the price of sea coals, obstruct and choak the river Tyne, be exceedingly mischievous to the bar of Tinmouth, and manifestly tend to the decrease of the trade, and damage of the town of Newcastle; under which trial and report all persons rested satisfied
160
