The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-04-13 00:00:00

ALLEGED INJURY TO CROPS.

At the Rineston Assizes, the cause of "Ifennemore and
Others v. Spice" has been Muni, and was an action for
alleged injury to crops, hedges, and herbcge, arising from
chytnical works at a place near Egimm.
The plaintiffs reside at High-street, Egham, and
carry on the business of pork butchers and dairymen.
The defendant is a civil engineer, having offices in Par-
liament-street, Westminster, and the owner of certain
works at the celebrated Runnymede. or Chalk Mead,
near Egham, formerly called the West Surrey Chy-
mical Works, and now known as the Gas Products
Company's Works, where substance* are made, as al-
leged, from products of gas works. The object of the
works now carried on by the defendant, and formerly
occupied by other parties, was to utilize the products
of the manufakture of gas. In December, 1670, the
defendant took the premises and pursued similar obj!cts.
Last year complaints were made by the plaintiff that
the pitch or tar refuse of the works flowed into the
ditches, and soon after that a suit plaint was filed in
the County Court. The suit was originally corn.
menced in the County Court at Chertsey in October
last, the plaintiff claiming £5O "on account of the soil,
pitch, tar, chymical matter, and refuse of a noxious
nature being allowed to flow upon the plaintiff's land,
and smoke from the defendant's factory being allowed
to overspread it, whereby, as they alleged, their crops
were destroyed." The defendant removed the case into
the superior Court, and it now came on to be tried. It
appeared that the plaintiffs' occupy from year to year
five acres and a half of grass land, at a rent of
/.30 a year on which they kept cows, in their
business as dairymen. Another case was that the
effect of the refuse and fumes from the defend-
ant's works poisoned the grass, so that the cows could
not eat it, and they had to get fresh pastures for
them. The plaintiffs enlarged their claim upon the
removal of the case into the superior Court, and now
claimed about I:150 in respect of loss of hay, and
injury to the grass and the hedges and ditches, for
about two years, since 1970, and they claimed for the
loss of ten loads of hay made upon their land.
The proof of the plaintiffs' case, occupied the ,
greater part of the day. In support of it the
Inspector of Nuisances was called and an hi-
, dependent gentleman of the neighbourhood, who
stated that he had seen volumes of foul black smoke
! emanating from the defendant's works. Numerous
witnesses were called—inhabitants of the neighbour-
hood of Staines and Egham—who gave evidence of
similar character. The plaintiffs' grass and hay, it
was said, had all been spoilt, and their hedges destroyed.
Specimens of the herbage and hay sand to have been
burnt up, spoilt, and blackened by these poisonous
fumes were exhibited in court as visible proofs of the
baleful effects thus produced.
On the part of the defendant it was urged that the
ease for the plaintiffs was based upon grow exaggera-
tion, both as regarded the cause of aAion and the claim
of damage ; that the injury arising from the defend-
ant's works was trivial, and the damage to the plain-
tiff', especially considering the lined nature of their
interest, was extremely insigni!leant
In support of the defence, the defendant was called,
and proved that before he had the premises other
parties had them and carried on more extensive works,

of afar worse character than his own, as they pro-
duced sulphate of ammonia. He himself only mad,
use of coal and coke as fuel, which did not give out
more smoke, he sail, than ordinary fires. He producer
naptha, anthracine (the raw material of the aniline)
and pitch. In these products there was nothhig, itt
said, at all noxious or unwholesome ; they might
all be spread over the fields without any injury
There was no such thing, be said emphatically,
as refuse in the manufacture of gas ; the product,
oil, naphtha, &c., were all valuable and husicuittit,
and as to the smoke, it was produced by burning the
heavier kind of oil to produce black for printers' ink
This black was very valuable, and was, therefore.
economised to the utmost, and by expensive experi
ments, improvements had been effected, which re-
duced the smoke to a minims's. Everything that
could lie done was done to prevent the escape of tit.-
" black," which, on the other hand, was far less injnri
ow' than common soot He believed that the cattle
actually preferred the gras.a when the blacks were upon
it, on account of some slight admixture of a saline vie
ment in it, and fed upon it more freely. As to the alleged
escape of tar or pi.ch, as he bought the tar of course he
should not let it escape. A little might have escaped
in the hot weather through its becoming melted,
but this was mere accident. The stuff was worth lls.
a gallon, and manufacturers were not such fools as to
let it escape into ditches if they could help it. As to
any alleged injury to herbage, the defendant produced
specimens from his own hedge, cut the day previous and
perfectly fresh and clean. In fact, the whole case for
the plaintiffs was in effect disputed and denied by the
defendant, who declared that in his belief no part of
the plaintiff's hedges or herbage was blackened or
burnt. And he swore that he mowed the grade off his
land adjoining the works, and sold it at a good price.
Evidence in support of the defence was given by a
farmer and stock valuer, a resident in the neighbour-
hood, who declared the hedges to be healthy, and who
produced a specimen of hay from the plaintiffs' field,
perfectly sweet and fresh, and declared the specimen
produced by the plaintiffs must have been taken from
the bottom of the rick, where it had been under flood.
It was only within about 100 feet of the works that
the blacks fell, and there the grass was more luxuriant
than elsewhere, for he added, soot was an excellent
manure, Dr. Voelok,r, the agricultural chymist,
was also called for the defence, and gave strong
evidence. There were, he said, no fumes gener-
ated in the defendant's works which were in.
jurious to vegetation, and, as to the smoke, it was
not in that respect like the ordinary smoke, which was
more or less mixed with sulphnrous matter, very dele-
terioue to vegetation. Furnace soot, he said, was so
far from being injurious that it was an excellent
manure, and no amount of the black produced at these
works could be deleterions nor was there anything at
all produced in the works injurious to the grass,
the herbage, or the feed of the cattle. Acid fumes,
he said, always showed their effects unmistakably
on the top parts of the plants—the tender shoots;
but there were no traces in the plaintiff's hedges
of such injury. On the contrary, he said the
herbage was more luxuriant nearer to the de-
fendant's works. The outside of the hay ricks and
parts of the shrubs .were blackened, but merely
with smuts and blacks which had fallen, and not at all
injuriously, or by being buret. The effect of this de-
posit of the blacks upon the gram was only to make it
grow more luxuriantly. As to the blackened tufts of
herbage produced on the part of the plaintiffs, he
pointed out that they were fully grown, for there were
the seeds of the grass actually in the stalks, to that
there coldil have been no injury to the vegetation, and
the mere deposit of a little black upon it was of no con-
sequence. These tufts were, in fact, merely the
aututnal growth of last year—pieces grown to seed,
and left ad through the autumn and winter to become
covered with blacks.

The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up the case to
the jury, said the plaintiffs had to make out thit they I
had sustained injury resulting from the works of the
defendant. There was no evidence here of injury
during the defendant's occupation of the works
from sulphurous acid, which it was admitted was
injurious to vegetation. Certainly there was smoke
accompanied by the deposit of blacks, which gave the
vegetation the appearance of being burnt. But then
it was only the lippearance, the evidence showing
that the vegetation was not really burnt up. As to
the soot, the scientific evidence showed that it was
rather a benefit than otherwise to the soil ; and the evi-
dence was as a matter of fact that where the blacks had
fallen the grass had grown more luxuriantly. The
plaintiffs' claim itself waoi for the loss of ten loads of
hay, cut upon live acres and a half, and it was for the
jury to say whether that was not a good crop in point
of quantity. As to how far it had been spoilt
by blacks, the evidence for the defence contra-
dicted the case for the plaintiff.. As to the
supposed burning up of the hedges and herbage,'
according to the evidence for the defence, there
was nothing in the works to cause any such
injury. And RO as to the alleged grievance of allowing
pitch and tar to flow into the ditches. On the whole
case the jury must say whether the plaintiffs had made
out their claim, or any part of it, according as they
believed .the evidence on the one side or on the other.
The jury consulted together for some time in the
box, and then desired to retire to colloid, their ver-
dict. . . . . .

While the jury were in deliberation the parties at
the suggestion of the Lord Chief Justice, agreed to
terms of settlement, a juror being withdrawn.