The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1883-07-14 00:00:00

BROMSGROVE.

Sor )0L BOARD.-At th 3 fortnightly meeling of the
Board., on Wednesday evening—Mr. Horton in the
char —the recommendation of the Attendance Com-
Lida, 2e that a committee of the Board should wait
upon Mr. Barrington Ward with respect to the
questiun of schocl fees, about which a letter from
the department was read at the last meeting was
adopted.—The letter from the department with re-
spect to the building of an infant school at Side-
more was considered, but no action was taken in
the matter. Mr. Green gave notice of motion, for
next meeting, to rescind the previous resolution of
the Board on this subject, to the effect that the
Board should not build the se''ool.

ACTION AGAINST A CONTRACTOR—At the County
Court on Thursday—before Sir R. Harington, judge,
and a jury—John Job 1.1-p'on Scarlett, earlier,
Bromsgrove, sued Steven Edward Fra,yne, contrac-
tor, Birmingham, to recover £23 4s. damages sus-
tained, as it was alleged, through defendant's negli-
gence. The Hon. A. Lyttelton appeared for plain-
tiff, and Mr, Milton defended.—lnaintiff's case was
that on the night of the sth April he was returninc,
with his horse and cart from Birmingham. the
night being dark and windy; and when nearing the
excavation in the Birmingham Road in which de-
fendant was laying a sewer, under contract with the
liro:nsgrove Local Board, he saw a small light, and
was getting down to lead his horse, when the whAel
of the cai t sank into the excavation, and pulled the
horse over and nearly threw witness out. The
horse, harness, and contents of the cart were in-
jured and for that, and for hire of another horse
till May 30th, while hi -I own was laid up, he claimed
the amount stated.—The defenca was that defend-
ant hid taken all reasmable care to prevent the
accident, and that the injury to plaintiff arose
through his Leing drukik.—The jury gave a verdict
for the plaintiff, with £lO. damages.
HORSE WARRANTY CASE.—AC the same Court,
thur Hodgetts, brewer, Halesowen, sued Charles
Humphreys, coach-builder, Bromsgrove, for £l6 is
61. for breach of warranty of a mare,—Mr. Nathan
was for the plaintiff, and the Hon. A. Lyttelton for
defendant.—The judge gave a verdict for plaintiff
for £13., with costs.

THE MANUFACTURING NUISANCE AT
DUDLEY.
WYNCOLL V. ALLDAY AND OTHERS.

At the Worcestershire Assize 3 on Thursday,
before Mr. Justice Butt, the special jury case of
Wyncoll V. Allday, Sons, and Wilkin- on, in which
the plaintiff, the Vicar of St. Luke's, Dudley, sought
to recover from the defendants, manufacturers, of
the same town, damages for a nuisance alleged to
hive been caused by their works, and also claiming
an injunction to restrain them from continuing the
nui,zance, was resumed. Mr. A. Staveley Hill, Q.C.
M.P., and Mr. Lawrence (instructed by Mr. 11. C.
13rettell, of Dudley) were for the plaintiff; Mr.
Jell, Q 0, with whom was Mr. A. Young (instructed
by Mr. R. J, Parr, of Birmingham), was for the
defendants.

The case for the plaintiff was concluded on the
previous day, and the defence was now proceeded
with, after a fruitless cousultation between the
parties had been held with a view to the case being
compromised.

Eb,nezer William Wilkinson, one of the defend-
ants, stated that on the Russell Hall Estate, which
wa4 adjacent to the plaintiff's house, there were
disused collieries, some ash mounds, and quantities
of rubbish.

Mr. Justice Butt (to Mr. Self): You are surely not
going to suggest that that is the cause of the
nuisance?

Mr. Jelf said he devired to show that during the
prevalence of a high wind, partly from the nature
of these collieries and the cinder heaps and so forth,
and partly from the collieries which are still at
work, clouds of dust were blown about in the sur—
rounding neighbourhood.
Mr. Justice Butt : It is a very dangerous sug-
gestion for you to make that the nuisance com-
plained of_is caused by that.

Mr. Jelf : I do not init it in that sense, but the
general character of the neighbourhood with regard
to smuts and stuffs blowing about must, 1 submit,
be taken into acconut in judging of what may be
reasonably complained of as a nuisance.
Mr. Justice Butt: Very well, I will not stop you.
Witness further stated that there were collieries
at work within 400 yards of the plaintiff's house.
There were also manufactories within 150 or 200
yards, and in windy weather a considerable
quantity of smoke and smuts was distributed. He
could stand on the doorstep of his place and count
fifty one ehininey•stacks. The largest hammers
used by his firm weighed 121bs, and precautions
were
..taken to deaden the sound of the hammering.
No complaint had been received from anyone except
the plaintiff of the noise caused by the hammering.
Witness made an inspection of the plaintiff's house
on the 24th June last, when, although the men at
the defendants' works were all at work, he could
not distinguish any vibration or noise in the house.
He observed a few smuts in the conservatory.
Plaintiff said the men could not be at work at the
time, but Mr. Allday gave him an invitation ti send
one of his surveyors to the works and ascertain.
At this stage of the proceedings another con-
sultation took place between the counsel engaged
in the case, and a compromise was effected, All
matters in dispute were referred to Mr. Underhill,
Q C,, who was to inspect the respective premises of
the litigating parties, be supplied with the briefs,
and have full power to deal with the matter as he
might think fit.