The Express.
London, England, 1862-04-03 00:00:00

1, 1862.

Chartered Gas Light and Coke Company, Westminster, for
allowing offensive matter to run into the Thames, contrary
to act of parliament.
Mr. Sleigh, instructed by Mr. Frere, of the firm of Fees
and Co., attended to prosecute ; and Mr. Morgan, of the
firm of Humphries and Morgan, conducted the defence.
Mr. Sleigh, after reading the words of the act under
which the summons had been taken out (the Themes Con-
servancy Act, sec- 102) stated the facts as afterwards
proved in evidence, and observed that the nuisance com-
plained of was not only highly prejudicial to health, but
destroyed both animal and vegetable life in the river, it
therefore absolutely necesaary that some steps should be
taken in the matter, and he need hardly say that the
Thames Conservancy had come forward and taken the
matter up purely from public motives. He then called
Mahe Trotter, who maid he wee a carpenter. On the
26th February he was upon the wharf at Milbank, fronting
the Gas Company's works, when be smelt a very disagree-
able odour at the distance of upwards of 100 yards from him.
He then perceived something running from a drain at the
wharf, and on dipping his finger into it and smelling it be
found it to be gas refuse. It was proceeding from a brick
drain, which had an iron grating in front of it nine inches
across, and the discharge formed a gutter in the mud on the
shore. On the same day he collected some in a bucket,
afterwards putting it into a bottle, which he handed over to
Mr. Lord, the superintendent of he company's works. He
also collected some on the 12th and 15th of March, and cal-
culated that the matter was running at the rate of a gallon
per minute. It smelt very offensive, and strongly impreg-
nated the air. There was a pipe affixed to the drain, and
some barges moored close to it for the purpose of removing
the offensive matter. _ _ _

Richard Lord, superintendent of the Conservancy Works,
identified a number of bottles produced as those banded
over to him by the last witness. In his ~m:ty as super-
intendent, he examioed the gas compaoy's wharf on the Bth
of March, and found there a tidal tray, with liquor running
from it at the rate of half • gallon a minute, which was
decidedly gas refuse. It had formed • basin into which it
Sowed, and polluted the water and air around. On the
19th of March be probed the pipe with an iron rod. He
put the rod 64 feet up, when it would go no further, owing
to souse obstruction. From where the obstruction took
place was in a direct line with the company's works. Ten
feet above the drain was a pipe from which the liquor was
discharged into the barges.
Mr. Frederick John Evans, engineer and manager of the
defendant.' works having been called by Mr. Sleigh to prove
that the wharf in question was their property, and in direct
communication with their works,
Dr. Letheby, medical officer of health for the City of
London, was examined, and said a the bottles which he
produced contained • liquid which had been given him by
Mr. Lord, and wasps refuse. He found the matter in all of
them to be strongly charged with sulphuretted hydrogen
and sulpho.cyanide of ammonia, which was the especial
ocuistitusot of gas water. The matter contained the am-
monia to the extent of 68 grains to the gallon, the bulk of
all the samples produced being ammomacal matter. One
ample was of a very dangerous nature, containing no less
than 203 grains of ammonia to thegallon. The liquid produced
was of a noxious nature, and detrimental to both
animal and vegetable life, and the atmosphere impregnated
by the effluvia would be very unwholesome. This refuse
matter with a strong solution of ammonia was valuable, as
it could be sold ; but it often occurred that gas companies
could not sell it, and they must get rid of it in some way.
He had known them obliged to evaporate it under the
retorts.

In cross-examination by Mr. Morgan, who had been de-
tained until after the tint two witnesses had been examined,
Dr. Letbeby said common sewage was detrimental to health,
but the fluid he had examined was very greatly so. The
bulk of the matter in the bottles was what was termed gas
refuse.

Mr. Sleigh remarked, that by the 166th section of the act
sewage was permitted to run into the Thames.
Mr. Evans was then erase-examined by Mr. Morgan—After
potting in a plan of the wharf, with the drain spoken of
and the pipe above it, be said the refuse from their pipe
was shut off by a stopcock and valve, and unless the pipe
was broken the liquor could not run into the brick drain,
and this could not be, or the leakage would be still going
on. The company sold this gas liquor ;it was, therefore,
to their interest to save it, and not let it run away, and the
contractor was bound to take it away, which was done by
affixing • hose to the pipe and reputes it off into barges.
They discovered • small leakage on the 12th, and seat down
at coca and had the pipe repaired, but he did not bakes
that • gallon of liquor had run away altogether. The leak-
age was extremely small, and u • company they took every
possible care that no offensive matter should flow into the
river.