The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-04-29 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.
THE PRICE OF GAS.

BRETTELL r. RHODES.

At the County Court, on Wednesday, before
Mr. C. A. Smith, Depudy-Judge, this was an ac-
tion to recover the sum of £l2 7s 9d., brought
by Mr. Brettell, builder, Lye, against Mr. T.
Rhodes, the Providential Works, Lye, for the
erection of a gas oven. A cross action was
brought by Rhodes against Bretton, claiming
tl9 as damage for loss and injuries sustained
through the alleged incompletion of the work by
Brettell.

Mr. Stokes appeared for Brettell and Mr. Hol-
berton for Rhodes. -

Mr. Stokes having opened the ease, called
Brettell, who stated that during the last two or
three years he had been extensively engaged in
the erection of "Clifts patent fire-brick gas
ovens. In February last year he met with Mr.
Rhodes, when he had some conversation in re-
ference to an oven he had erected at Messrs. J.
Hall and Co.'s brick works, and Mr. Rhodes said
he should like one similar to it. A verbal order
' was then given for the erection of such an oven
upon Mr. Rnodes's premises. Several months
elapsed before the work was commenced. The
erection was done in about a week, under his
own personal supervision, during which time
Mr. Rhodes visited it daily. When complete
the oven was left in a perfect state. Be saw
some old pipes, which Mr. Rhodes said he was
going to connect to carry the gas to the holder ;
but he told him they would not do, end that it
would require much larger ones. However, they
were ultimately attached.
In cross-examination, he stated that the oven
he erected uponiMessrs. Hall's premises had been
up six years, and he believed it answered very
well. It was a month after the erection of Mr.
Rhodes's oven before he received any complaint.
He told Mr. Rholies that he could not make gas
until he had got larger pipes, and told him to en-
close it He did not know how many lights Mr.
Rhodes had in his works. He was sure there
was no crack in the bottom of the oven when he
left it, but it had been caused since through
small pipes being connected.
William Jones, the bricklayer who put up the
; oven, said it was well built. It was 31t Gin. in
diameter and 2ft high, with two retorts. In his
opinion the crack was caused by the small
pipes.
Mr. Thomas Rhodes, the defendant in the
present case, was then called, and stated he gave
the order nearly eighteen months ago, but after
a long delay the oven in question was erected.
Upon giving it a trial the week following ite erec-
tion, it did not answer, and a crack was found in
the bottom of it, through the quarries not being
put in tight enough. In consequence of that he
could not make any gas, and the oven was use-
less to him. When it was complete, Brettell
said nothing to him about not putting old pipes
in. The pipes he connected for the purpose of
carrying the gas to the holder were 21r inches in
diameter. He did not see the plaintiff until two
months afte.rwards, when he went for his ac-
count. _

In cross-examination, he said he did cover it
as directed, not with brick work, but sheet iron.
He afterwards saw Mr. North, an experienced
gas manager, but he did not tell him the-cause of
the failure was through the small pipes being
connected.
In accordance with his Honour's wish the
second case was then heard.
Mr. Rhodes, the plaintiff, said that in cons-
quence of the oven being a failure, he had been
compelled to light his works by oil, candles, and
other means, at a considerable loss, fur wlich he
claimed .£l9 as damages.
John Richards, manager of the Brierley-hill
Gas Works, was then called, and said he had ex-

atnined the oven of Mr. Rhodes and found a

crack in the bottom of it, through which the gas
could escape. The oven was too large for Mr.
Rhodes's works, and, consequently, caused Lim
more expense in working it than was necessary.
In cross-examination, he said that 2.c tof coal
would make 1,000 feet of gas. The lipes from
the oven to the holder were only -inch which
he considered sufficient.'
Mr. Wm. North, manager of the Stourbridge
Gas Works, for the defence, stated that he had
seen the oven in question, and it was too large
for Mr. Rhodes's requirements. The pipes from
the oven to the holder were only 2f-inch, and
wore placed in a Gin socket. Through having
so small a pipe the sides of the oven would have
to have given if a crack had not been caused.
Such small pipes were not sufficient to carry the
gas which was generated in the oven to the
holders. From experience he found that gas
bould scarcely be perceived for the first 48 hours
after erection. During the first aeven days it
would not work properly.
John Bradbury grve corroborative evidence.
His Honour, in summing up, said that Mr.
Brettell was entitled to his judgment in each
case, but he directed that the oven should be
put in proper order.

Jackson v. Stanton—This was an action to recover the
sum of 1:7 2s for goods sold to defendant. Mr. Collis,
for plaintiff, said defendant had sent his client a tele-
gram admitting the debt. His Honour gave a verdict for
the full amount claimed
Hill r. Guest.—This was an action to recover the sum
of £lO for a nuisance caused by defendant's horse. The
case was heard at the January Court, and the decision
given on Wednesday, which sus: a verdict for defendant.
Mr. Homfray for plaintiff, and Mr. Collis for defend-
ant.