Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-07-10 00:00:00

DteoRTANr TO RAILWAY COMPANIES.

it the Birkenhead Petty Sessions, held yesterday
before Messrs. Barton and Coxon, a case came on to be
heard in which the Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire
Junction Railway Company were summoned at the
Instance of Mr. Charles Inman, of Spital-hall. for a
nuisance in permitting smoke to issue from the funnels
of their locomotive steam engines. Mr. Harvey, of
Castle-street, Liverpool, appeared for the 'complainant,
and Mr. J. B. Lloyd, of Liverpool, for the defendants.
The first case gone into was for an offence committed on
the 10th ult., and the summons was to the following effect.
For that hey, the Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire
Junction Railway Company, on the 19th day of June last,
past at the hour of 9.10 a.m., at the township of Poulton-
come-Spital, in the oounty of Chester, then being a com-
pany known and incorporated by the name of the Birken-
head, Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction Railway
Company, and having the control or management of a
certain line of railway known as the Birkenhead, Lanca-
shire, and Cheshire Junction Railway, extending from the
township of Birkenhead to the town of Chester in the said
county, did unlawfully use on the said line of railway, at
and near a place known as the Spital Station, in the
township of Poulton cum-Spital aforesaid, a certain loco-
motive steam engine, to wit, the Gnome, No. 12 engine,
not con-tructed on the principle of consuming, and so as to
consume its own smoke, contrary to the form of the
statute in such case made and provided, ietituled, "An
act for consolidating in one act certain provisions usually
inserted in acts authorising the making of railways,"
whereby they had incurred a penal?), of five pounds. Mr.
Harvey, in opening the case, said that the proceedings
were taken under the authority of the Bth Vic., e. 20. By
the 114th section of that Act it is enacted, that " every
locomotive steam-engine to be used on the railway shall,
if it use coal or other similar fuel emitting smoke. be
constructed on the principle of consuming, and so as to
consume its own smoke; and if any engine'be not so con-
structed, the company, or parties using such engine, shall
forfeit five pounds for every day during which such
engine shall be used on the railway." The complaint was
made by Mr. Charles Inman, sen ; a gentleman residing
at Spital-hall, whose house is about 100 yards from the
station. At the same time, he begged to state, that before
these steps were taken, complaints had been made to the
railway company ; still the nuisance was continued. He
then called Mr. Charles Inman, sen., who stated that, on
the day on question, between the hours of nine and ten in
the morning, he saw a goods train came up to the Spital
station, and then come back into a siding to take off a
truck; that he observed black smoke issuing from the
chimney or funnel, and coals in the fireman's shovel,
and coke in the tender. He was in a field alongshts
the railway at the time, and sent his son to take
the name and number of the engine. Upon cross-
examination by Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Inms.o stated that he
knew nothing of the construction of the engine, and that
it was not vapour, but smoke. Mr. Charles Inman, jun.,
fully bore out his father's evidence. Mr. Lloyd then
addressed the bench, and said—lf I give in evidence the
construction of the engine, so as to consume its own
smoke, I take it that the company have complied with the
statute. He then called James Kenyon, who sail that be
was in the employ of the company as locomotive engine
driver, and had been so for the last six or seven years.
Was the driver of engine No. 12 on the 19th of June last,
and left the Grange lane goods station, at Birkenhead, on
that day at 910 a.m.—it ought to have been earlier—and
arrived at the Spital station at 9 30 a.m., where the train
was shunted to allow a passenger train from Chester,
which left at 915 a.m., to pass. The engine was con.
strutted so as to consume its own smoke; and, while on
the shunting, no smoke was emitted from the chimney.
nor did he use coal. Robert Walker, the fireman, also
corroborated his evidence. Mr. George Douglas was
next called, and stated that he was the company's engi—
neer, and had the superintendence of the locomotive de-
partment. He knew the engine No. 12; it was constructed
to consume its own smoke, and did so effectually. He also
produced a plan of the construction of engines for burning
coal and coke. .Mr. Edward Jefferies was then called,
and stated that be was superintendent of the Shrewsbury
and Hereford Railway ; that he had turned his attention
to the mode of consuming smoke by locomotive engines ;
and that he knew No. 12 engine, which was made to
consume its own smoke. He had oaken out a patent
for consuming smoke, and knew all its details. On
cross-examination of Mr. Harvey he stated that com-
plaints had bean made of the smell arising from the coal
used on the engines on the Shrewsbury and Hereford
Railway, but it was twelve months ago, and had once
been remedied. Mr. Lloyd then argued that he had
answered the complaint by showing that the engine was
constructed as required by the act. Mr. Harvey, how-
ever, in reply, said that if he, as an inhabitant of Spital,
saw smoke coming from an engine, his only duty was to
see where that smoke came from, and would therefore
look to the top of the chimney funnel. It was very
unpleasant for Mr. Inman and gentlemen to be placed in
such a position as to be obliged to complain against a
company, hut they think it a duty they owe to themselves
and to society that the act of parliament should be fully
complied with. It was all very well for the company to
come here with witnesses to say that the engine was so
constructed as to consume its own smoke. It may be so,
but that was not a part of his client's ditty to go into, and
ha thought he had fully made out his case by the evidence
he had given; and before these steps had b-en taken, the
Board of Trade had been written to, and he would read
their reply. • Mr. Lloyd rose, and said he objected to its
being read, anti the bench allowed the objection. Mr.
Harvey declined making any further obrervation. Mr.
Barton said that he and his brother magistrate had fully
considered the case, and the evidence, in their opinion,
had fully born it out. -He had heard of complaints
made of the smoke from railway engines, the defendants
would be, therefore, fined five pounds and costs.
The next case was then called on, and when it
had been shortly gone into, Mr. Barton, asked Mr.
Harvey if he intended going on with all the other
cases, and whether he did not think that a convic-
tion in the first case, and a promise from the
ccimpany to abate the nuisance would not be
sufficient to answer the object he had in view. Mr
Harvey having consulted Mr. Inman, said that he (Mr.
Inman) was willing to bow to the suggestion of the bench,
and upon such a promise being given, the other summonses
may be discharged. Mr. Lloyd, on behalf of the company,
having given the required promise, the sumonses were
accordingly discharged upon the company' paying the
costs. Mr. Inman then rose and said, thst it was much
against his wish to appear against the. company, but his
house was within so short a distance of the railway that
he could not have his windows open for fear of the rooms
being filled with smoke and blacks: He had repeatedi
complained but gsit no redress. One of the other cases,
which happened on the 23rd June, was a very bad one,
or then there was nothing but coal on the tender.

The matter then dropped, and all parties left the court,
which was very much crowded.

DOINGS OF THE CORPORATION.