Dublin City Assembly Rolls - Extracts from the Calendar of the Ancient Records of Dublin 1716

Roll XIXm.36b.
An abstract of, the Ballast Office accounts from the 18th day of January, 1715[16] exclusive, to the 12th day of April, 1716, inclusive :

Ballast Office, Dr-
To balance of accounts to the 18th January, 1715[-16] inclusive £36 11s. 2d.
To cash received from 18th January, exclusive, to 12th April, inclusive £627 9s. 5d.

Total £664 0s. 7d.

Deduct payments. £557 8s. 10d.
Balance in the Office £106 11s. 9d.
Besides in Messrs. BURTON and HARRISONs hands, as per account £2530 0s. 0d.
Total in cash £2636 11s. 1d.

Per contra. Cred.
By sundry disbursements on the Office account from the 18th January,
1715[-16], exclusive, to the 12th April, inclusive. £557 8s. 10d.

[14.] [Case for advice and opinion of counsel.]
By an act passed in the late queens time for erecting a Ballast Office in the city of Dublin, the Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, commons and citizens of the city of Dublin are constituted keepers and conservators of the port of Dublin. They have made a lease to Sir John ROGERSON of a piece of ground on the south side 0£ the channel, which Sir John Rogerson was obliged to inclose : Sir John Rogerson, in order to carry on the work, has contracted with one VERNON, (of Clontarf, Co. Dublin) to furnish him with stones. Vernon has laid down a great quantity of them on the north side of Sir John Rogersons wall, by Sir Johns directions, as Vernon alleges, and within the channel. Sir John Rogerson has taken what stones he thought were fit for his use, and has left the rest : Vernon alleges that Sir John was to take both small and great stones as they rise out of the quarry, and therefore refuses to remove them, by which means they continue in the channel and area very great nuisance to our shipping.

Query: How is the city to remove them? And whether against Sir John Rogerson or Vernon, or both? or whether the city may not remove them of their own authority without apprehending any law suit from Vernon?

[Opinion:] , Every navigable river is a high road, and any person whatsoever may remove whatsoever is thrown into it that obstructs the passage, and the city may, without all doubt, as conservators of the river and port of Dublin, reform this nuisance, and are obliged to do it, and Vernon, or the persons who throw in the stones, may be proceeded against by indictment or presentment.

But the most expeditious method of proceeding against them is by an act made in the sixth year of the late queen for erecting a Ballast Office, by which any person who has thrown any rubbish into the river, upon conviction upon oath before the Lord Mayor, or any justice of the city or county at large, is to forfeit five shillings to the informer, to be levied by distress and sale of his goods.

m.35.
Though the city may remove the stones, yet the property continues still in sir John Rogerson or Vernon, and though the city may remove them and throw them out of the channel on the banks, yet I am of opinion they cannot hinder those who have the property from taking them again.

I am of opinion that the city have no reason to apprehend any law suit either from Sir John Rogerson or Vernon for removing those Stones, for if there should be any clause in sir Johns lease that he may lay stones for building his walls in the channel of the river, yet they must be removed in convenient time, and not suffered to lye there longer than is absolutely necessary,

Dated and signed: April the 9th, 1716.-Thomas Marlay.(Note : Appointed Chief Justice, King's Bench, Ireland 1741)

From Ireland Home page>>Irish History>>Dublin City Assembly Rolls 1716, page 1>>2>>3>>4>>5>>6>>7>>8>>9>>10>>11>>12

 

http://www.from-ireland.net©Dr. Jane Lyons 2001-2007