Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1032

After hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that so much of the decree complained of, as ordered, "that the bond given by the respondent to Walter Pigot, Esq. should be delivered up to be cancelled; and that satisfaction should be acknowledged on the record of the judgment given by order of the court upon the said bond," should be affirmed and it was further ordered and adjudged, that the remaining part of the said decree, which directed, "that the appellants should pay the respondent his costs, both at law and in equity, to be taxed by one of the Masters of the same court," should be reversed. (Jour. vol. 22. p. 429.)

The appellants are seised in fee of the ancient office of lastage and ballastage for ships in the river Thames, and of the sole right of ballasting of ships in the said river, between London Bridge and the main sea eastward, which use and require ballastage to sail with, or to be put or taken into them respectively; and of selling all ballast materials, or merchandize to be used as ballast for them; and the lastage and ballasting, or loading of sand, gravel, soil, stones, earth, chalk, rubbish, clay, flints, lime, soap-ashes, bricks, tiles, or any other thing, merchandize, or commodities whatsoever, taken from any wharf, creek, coast, bank, or shore upon or adjoining to the river Thames, for lastage, ballastage, and ballasting or loading as aforesaid; and of the gravel, sand, and soil of the said river, as solely belonging to them, together with the several ancient fees, perquisites, and profits, to the said office of lastage and ballastage belonging and appertaining.

This office was granted to the appellants, inter alia, for the better support, relief, and maintenance of poor, maimed, and decayed seamen, their wives, widows, and orphans, and other charitable uses; as well as to enable the appellants to cleanse and take care of the channel and navigation of the river Thames, within the limits aforesaid. And accordingly, the appellants are constantly at very great charges in cleansing and taking care of the said river, having not less than sixty ballast lighters and one hundred and twenty men constantly at work, upon the shelfs and sand-banks of the river; and they also maintain ninety-three alms-houses, and the poor people therein; and likewise relieve two thousand three hundred out-pensioners, consisting of decayed seamen, their wives, widows, and orphans; to whom they pay £400 at least monthly, and the greatest part of it out of the produce of this ballast-office.

In Michaelmas term 1722, the appellants exhibited their bill in the Court of Chancery against the respondents and others; charging, that the respondent Ryall was owner of a wharf on the river Thames between London Bridge and the main sea; and by virtue of several contracts with scavengers and rakers, had great quantities of dung and soil brought to his wharf, with which he had for three years last past furnished several of the other defendants, and other masters of ships in the said river, with ballast for their ships; and that the said respondent had ballasted a great number of ships, riding within the said limits, with such dung and soil, and sold the same as ballast.—And the appellants by their said bill insisted, that all ballasting and selling of ballast, for [390] ballasting of ships within the limits aforesaid, and of loam, sand, chalk, stones, rubbish, soil, or any other materials or merchandize, to be used as ballast, was against the appellants right, and a prejudice to their said ballast-office; and that dung was properly ballast, as well as loam, sand, and other materials. They therefore prayed, that the respondent Ryall might account with them for such dung and soil, or other materials put on board such ships, and used as ballast; and that he might be injoined for the future from selling or disposing of such dung and soil, or other materials for ballast.