Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-09-22 00:00:00

SMOKE INFORMATIONS,

There were several smoke informations brought
against proprietors of chemical works, soap boilers, and
others.

M'Gowan said that he was about to lay before
the bench the particulars of several cases, in which,
notwithstanding repeated
enthtse proprietors
of different manufacturing establishments t,,hle. town
continued to carry on their works withinn
whereby large quantities of smoke were emitted,ebigence,
con-
trary to the terms of the local act. Several notices
been served upon the parties, and the officers had re-
peatedly called upon them, but still they hal been
unable to induce them to do what was right, and now
he asked the bench, when the cases should have
been proved, to inflict the penalty imposed by the act,
of £5. The first caseihe would bring before them, was
that of Messrs. Thomas. Lutwyche and Sons, the pro-
prietors of the chemical works, in Pumpfields. He
understood that those gentlemen were represented by
Mr. Forshaw.
Inspecter Wignal stated that, on the 3rd instant, he
noticed a dense volume of black smoke proceeding from
the chimney
.of the defendants' works. It continued
for eight minutes and a-half. He went upon the
premises, and complained to the foreman. He
knew the condition of the furnaces, and that there
no difficulty whatever in firing up, and getting rid
of
htheenSt ok in from. one and a-half to two minutes.
visited the premises, after seeing the smoke,
he saw that the furnaces had just been overloaded with
Coal and slack.
In cross-examination by Mr. H. Forshaw, the in-
spector said he was that
what he saw on the fur-
naces was coal and smoke.
Mr. Forshaw, on behalf of the defendants, denied

that. what the inspector aw. was coal and slack. His 1
elicits, in the course 'of. their business, were•compelled
to use a material, consisting of sulphate of soda; and the
combination was of such a nature that, when it was put
upon the furnaces, it did, for a short time, cause a dense
black smoke. He should call before them people on the
premises, who would tell them that it was riot the coal,
which produced the imoke, but the material which he
had named, and which they must use in the course of
their business. He contended that if he proved that
coal on the furnaces was not the cause of the smeke, the
magistrates could not convict on the information as it
was now laid against them ; hut that if the
authorities desired -a conviction, they 'must proceed"
under another section of the act, which provided a
remedy in cases wherethe carrying,. on of a business was
a nuisance to the neighbourhood. If Mr. M`Gowan
would boldly make a'charge of that kind against the
defendants, he should be prepared, on their behalf,- to:
meet it ; and should an information-so made succeed,
then the defendants mast close their premises ; but at
T i
the
e .smoke; .defendants
oke ; aand
d o weren the ve r y -eau
occasionsi very-cautious s
present he held that the bench could not inflict a
winhenketelipe-
rirdltoywn.
sulphate of soda was put upon the furnace 4, the emis-
sion of smoke did net last mac-than- bout three
or

four rAinutes
Mr. Nolan, foreman to the defendants, was then
called, and stated that when the inspector called on the
3rd instant, when the smoke was issuing. he (witness)
told him that it was not caused by coal, but by the
sulphate of soda., .It .Was that material- which he saw
at the time, and not coal or slack.
Mr. Caitellain—How long will the smoke caused by
this material last ?
Witness—Not more than,four or five minutes at the
most. .

Mr. Forshaw—But you say that this material, when
it is put on the furnaces, inevitably causes a dense smoke
for a time ?
Witness—lt does.

The witness underwent a lengthened cross-examina-
tion by Mr. M'Gowan ; and, after a discussion between
the bench and. the respective attoznies, a fine of forty
shillings and costs was,imposefl. ,
Messrs. James Muspratt and c 0,., •of the chemical
works, Vauxhall-road, were summoned for allowing
smoke to be emitted from their chimney on Sunday, the
11th instant.,—lnspector Wig,nall stated that he noticed
smoke . issuing from the defendants' chimney on
the 11th. It- continued for nine minutes.—A gentle-
man who attended from .the defendants' works said
that he admitted that,: 'on the occasion- referred to,
there might have been more smoke thari usual ;
but he thought it very hard that they should be brought
up when it was known that there was no firm in the
town more careful tban they were. It was very likely
owing to a slight oversight on the part of the men, and
he thesht that, under the circumstances, it ought not
to have' been notieed.Mr. Castellani : You must pay
a fine of £5, and make your men _ bear it.—Defendant :
It is a very hard case. ,

Mr. Thomas Croft, soap boiler, Comm-street, fined
40s. and costs, for allowing his chimney to smoke eight
minutes, on the 3rd instant.

Mr. W. Hilliar, proprietor of the Eastham steamers,
summoned for allowing smoke for eight minutes from
the funnel of one of his steamers, was fined 40s. and
costs.

Mr. Jonathan Atkinson' soap boiler, Vauxhall-road,
summoned for allowing dense black smoke from his
chimney for seven minutes and a-half, fined 40s. and
costs.

Mr. Thomas Higginson, rice mills, Lydia Arm-street,
fined £3 and costs; for chimney being allowed to smoke

eight Minutes

-Mr. Thomas Hadfield, chemical works, Pumpfield
Chimney smoking nine minutes, on the 3rd instant, 40s

and costa.

TEE PROPRIETOR OP TER SEEL-STREET STEAM SAW
MILLS AND MR. M'OOWAN.

Mr. J. B. Slater, proprietor of the steam saw Mills
in Seel-street, was summoned for allowing dense rolumes
of black smoke to issue from the- chimney of his works
on the 28th of Atigust, On•the case bait 'called on,

Mr. Slater, with considerable warmth-, complained
that he had only received the summons that morning,
and had been put to very great inconvenience and ex-
pense in consequence, as it had prevented him from going
out of town.

After some discussion, Mr. M'Gowan remarked that
Mr. Slater might have come to the office, and in that
case be would have postponed the hearing. •

Inspector Wignall staied,, that on the 28th of August
large masses of black smoke were issuing from the de-
fendant's chimney for seven minutes and a.half.

Mr. Slater denied that his chimney made black smoke,
and said it was no nuisance at all.

Mr. M'Gowan said that the defendant's chimney was
one of the greatest nuisances in the neighbourhood, and
that he had been repeatedly warned.
Mr. Slater replied that he had done all in his power
to keep down the smoke, and he considered he was
harshly treated. There were numerous firms whose
chimneys were making far more smoke than his, and yet
they were never summoned. How was it that Messrs.
Horsfall & Co., of. the Mersey Foundry, were not sum-
moned ? They might be summoned every day ; and yet
nothing was done to interfere with them' although they
made more black smoke than any other firm in Liver-
pool.. He supposed it was because Mr. Horsfall was
member for Liverpool. (Loud laughter.)
Mr. M'Govern—Mr. Slater, you know the difficulty
there is in the case of Messrs. Horsfall and Sons.

Mr. Castellain—We must impose a penalty of £5 and
costs.

Mr. Slater (with warmth)—l shall appeal against it,

TILE EGREMONT AND NEW BRIGHTON STEAMERS

Messrs. W. R. Colborne and Co., proprietors of the
Egremont and New-Brighton steamers, were summoned
for allowing smoke to issue from the funnel of the
steamer Liscard on the 11th instant.

Inspector Wignal stated that, on the 11th instant, he
noticed a large volume of black smoke issuing from the
funnel of the steamer Liscard. It continued for eight
minutes. He knew that the furnaces on board this vessel
were in good order, and that there was no difficulty in
firing up and getting the smoke down in from one-and-
a-half to two minutes. He had frequently seen the
smoke put down by their own men in two minutes.
Mr. Colborne said that, in leaving the Landing,.-stage
on_the ringing of the bell, they must fire up, and it was
quite impossible to do so and subdue the smoke in
two minutes. They were as careful as they possibly
could be.

A fine of £3 and costs was imposed.
THE FREDERICK-STREET BATHS.-A CORPORATE