CO885-(13-15) — Page 475

24827.

No. 120.

(JAMAICA.)

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

PLC.O. 885

SIR,

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice,

November 30, 1896.

We were honoured with your commands, signified in Mr. Bramston's letter of the 24th instant, stating that he was directed by you to lay before us a letter from the Admiralty, with its enclosures, raising the question whether their Lordships could be permitted to lay pipes for a water supply to Port Royal, Jamaica, along the foreshore of Kingston Harbour adjoining land belonging to a Mr. Stern.

That Mr. Bramston was to request that we would advise you whether, on the assumption that no grant had been made by the Crown to Mr. Stern or his predecessor in title derogating from the rights of the Crown in respect of the foreshore in question, the Crown was precluded by the Colonial Act of 35 Charles II., Chapter 12, from authorising the Admiralty to lay pipes along such foreshore if the laying of such pipes would interfere with the erection of wharves or bridges by the owner of the land adjoining such foreshore.

We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commanda, have the honour to

Report-

That the Crown retains all rights in the foreshore subject to the right conferred by the Statute of Charles II. to take up the shoal water to make wharves or bridges. The Crown would not be entitled to do anything upon the foreshore which made it impossible for the adjoining owner to exercise this privilege of making wharves or bridges in the shoal water. But the Crown is entitled to use the foreshore for laying pipes so long as this will leave it reasonably practicable for the adjoining owner to make any wharf or bridge which he may desire in the shoal water. Whether the laying of the pipes on the foreshore would in this sense interfere with the right of the adjoining owner to make wharves or bridges is, of course, a question of fact. But it appears to us very difficult to suppose that the laying of these pipes would in any way prevent Mr. Stern from making any wharves or bridges which he may desire. Upon this view of the facts we are of opinion that the Crown is entitled to use the foreshore for the purpose in question. Mr. Stern would not be entitled to make a wharf or bridge in such a way as unnecessarily to damage the pipes. But he would be entitled to exercise his privilege of making a wharf or bridge even if this interfered with the pipes laid by the Crown, as the right of the Crown to use the foreshore is subject to the right conferred him by the Statute 35 Charles II.

upon

The Crown is entitled to lay the pipes, and it is only in the case of Mr. Stern actually exercising his right of making a wharf or bridge that any question can arise as to his right to interfere with the pipes.

We, of course, assume that the pipes will be laid in such a way as not to interfere with the right of the public to navigation.

The Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P. &c.

&c.

&c.

We have, &c.

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

O 90585.-84,

25.-12/96.

I

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO