21.--Died at his residence, Thorpe Hamlet, aged 82, Mr. John Skipper, who
had filled several offices under the old Corporation of Norwich,
including those of Speaker and Chamberlain.
24.--Died at Trumpington Street, Cambridge, Mr. S. D. Colkett, artist,
formerly of Norwich.
31.--The litigation arising from the inundation in Marshland commenced on
this date with the hearing, in the Vice-Chancellor's Court, of an
application for a mandamus to compel the Middle Level Commissioners to
restore the paling path over the breach made by the inundations. At the
suggestion of the Court, it was agreed that the only question in dispute,
that of legal liability, should be raised as a special case. At the
Norfolk Assizes, on April 1st, before Lord Chief Justice Erle, two
actions, Mason _v._ Wise and Coe _v._ Wise (clerk to the Middle Level
Commissioners), were down for trial by special jury. It was understood
that these cases, which were brought for the recovery of damages
consequent upon the inundation, were selected out of a total of 107
causes in which writs had been issued. In the action Coe _v._ Wise, the
declaration alleged that by a certain Act of Parliament the Middle Level
Commissioners were bound to make and maintain a certain cut, bank, and
sluices; it was complained that, in consequence of their negligence, the
tidal waters burst through them and flooded the lands of the plaintiff.
The defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and alleged that the
plaintiff was not possessed of the lands. The hearing of the case
occupied four days. The Judge, in summing up, directed the jury to
decide whether the damage was caused to the plaintiff by the absence of
due care and skill on the part of the defendants, (1) in respect of the
making of the sluice; (2) in respect of maintaining the sluice; (3) in
respect of providing remedies against mishap after the sluice was
destroyed; and (4) was damage caused to the plaintiff by reason that no
puddled wall was made along both banks of the cut? The jury found for
the defendant on the first point, and for the plaintiff on the other
three points. In the Court of Queen's Bench, on April 18th, Mr. Fitzroy
Kelly moved for a rule calling upon plaintiff to show cause why the
verdict should not be set aside and entered for the defendant, on the
ground of misdirection, and that the verdict was against the evidence.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said the Court would grant a rule upon the
question of law involved, but not as regarded the evidence, because their
lordships found that Lord Chief Justice Erle was satisfied with the
verdict. The case was again before the Court of Queen's Bench on
November 19th, and, alter two days' argument, was ordered to stand over
until the next term. (_See_ January 21st, 1864.)