The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1883-06-09 00:00:00

BRIERLEY HILL LOCAL BOARD.

A. monthly meeting of the above Board was held
on Monday afternoon, at the Town Hall. Mr. S.
Bennett (chairman) presided, and there were also
present Messrs. M, Rollinson, W. Waldron, T.
Fereday, D. Rollinson, 13. Browning, R. Thompson,
G. Edwards, E. Pearson, H. Carder, G. Mantle, R.
B. Guest, J. R. Whitfield, W. Macmillan, and G.
Griffiths.—The General Purposes Committee re-
ported that a sub committee had been appointed
to act with the Church Hill Improvement Com-
mittee in raising funds and carrying out the im-
provements there. The committee had again had
before them a number of complaints on the book
requiring the attention of the night soil contractor,
and the Board was recommended to re-consider the
matter previous to the execution of the contract,
Accompanying this report was that of the Medical
Officer of Health (Dr, shmead), which showed
that during last month 23 deaths had been
registered, the death-rate being 14-4 per 1,000 per
annum, Seven of the deaths had occurred from
zymotic diseases, three of the seven being from
scarlet fever, which occurred in Mickkiln-street.
There were several grave nuisances existing in the
street in the shape of deficient drainage and ac-
cumulations of night soil. The street consisted of
old houses rather densely inhabited, and not very
ea-y to drain. The removal of the night-soil
should be more efficiently catried out, as there
were about 60 cases still on the books.—The re-
port was adopted; and after some discussion upon
the night—soil contract it was decided to have
furnished a return giving a comparison as to the
work done when the removal was effected by the
Board, and when done by contract.—The Clerk
(Ur. Holberton) informed the Board that the
Court of Appeal had reversed the decision of
Lerd Justice Bowen in the action of Pearsall v. The
Local Board. and. allowed the appeal, thereby
giving judgment against the Board.—ln reply to
Mr. Waldron, the Cleik said the Board could yet
appeal te the House of Lords. That, however,
would be an expensiv3 course to pursue, and a
heavy deposit. would Lave to be made. —Mr.
Waldron: Is there any prospect of our succeeding?
That's 'what we wan tto know. I have a very
strong impressien about it.—The Clerk replied that
after the decision of the Court of Appe tl he dis•
cussed the matter with the Board's ccunsel. Mr.
Ainstie, Q.C., was etronely of opinion that the
Board should go to the House of Lords, but Mr.
Jell, Q.C., thought, under the circumstance, it
would perhaps hardly be discreet to hazard any
further proceedings, although he considered that
the Board were right Replying- to Mr. Thompson,
the Clerla said the Judges of Appeal, to all intents
and purposes, reversed the decision of Lard .Tustice
Bowen.—Mr. Guest asked if the Master of the
Rolls did not say theft) were three courses open
to the appellants, and that the hest and cheapest
couree had been taken at first in going to arbitra-
tion P—The Clerk: He didesay so, but L-,rd Justice
Bowen said quite the reverse, and that in his
judgment it was not the best way to proceed.—Mr.
Guest: Did not the three judge; concur, with the
Master of the Rolls P—The Clerk: They did. In
future all such cases have to be commenced by
arbitration.--Mr. M. Rollinson thought it would be
rash for the Board to spend any more money on the
matter.—The Clerk, in answer to Mr. Carder, said
the deposit in e imilar appeal was £2OO, and if the
case went to the Bouse of Lords it was pos; iele the
Board might hove to make a deposit first of the
=omit of the judgment and the costs —Mr.
Fereday thought it would be madness for the
Board to attezupt to right against the decision of
the Court of Appeal, and to proceed any further
would be a waste of public money, and, considering
the gieat ris::, heel.oalcl never give his consent to
it.—Mr. Mantle said another lesson which the
Board had learnt was not to interfere with people's
property for the pie po,s of carrying out sr-called
improvements.—Mr. Carder, on the other hand,
contended that it was part of the Board's functions
to effect improvements where necessary.—Mr.
Macmillan a as of opinion that the case should be
carried to the House of Lords.—Mr. Griffiths
believed if the ratepayers were canvassed that the
majority of them would be in favour of cal vying
the case further, and he expressed himself in
favour of,et town's meeting being called, E o as to
test the public feeling on the matter.--1 he CR re,
in answer to Mr. Browning, said the amount of
damages was about £235, and he thought tl:e costs
of tile enquiry before the arbitrator were about
£l3O or £l4O. Then there was the trial at
Gloucester Assizes, and the costs of the appeal, the
latter being inconsiderable.—Mr. Griffiths : Do
you think the whole costs will be more than
141,000 P—The Clerk: I cannot tea. If I make a
Istatemant I am committed to it. In reply to further
inquiries, he said the costs of the other side had
not been delivered, and he could,not yet tell what
they would be.— After further discussion, Mr.
Guest moved, and Mr. Brownine seconded, "That
the matter be deferred until an approximate state-
ment of the costs already incurred had been
fureished by the clerk."—Mr. Thorneson moved,
and Mr. Pearson seconded, "That the litigation
cease, and the amount a f the judgment and costs be
raid."—Another amendment was moved by Mr.
Macmillan, and seconded by Mr. Waldron, to the
effect "that the matter be adjourned for a v. eek, the
Board then to decide what course sholl be taken

with reference to a further appeal, and that the
clerk then give the Board the amount of all
probable costs, and the time allowed. for giving
notice of appeal to thy House of Lords." This was
carried, seven members voting fogit, and only t .rep
for Mr. Thompson's amendment. Mr. Guests
motion was not voted upon.

SATURDAY,* Trxr 9, 1883.