Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-01-04 00:00:00

WATER COMMITTEE,

At the usual weekly meeting of this committee, Mr.
Hodson occupied the chair. The other gentlemen pre-
sent were—Messrs. Jeffery, Ryley, Crellin, Earle,
Farnworth, Rae, Chilton, and Woodruff.
Mr. Duncan reported that the quantity of water re-
ceived from Rivington during the week ending Ist
January, 1859, was 44,432,145 gallons ; quantity pumped
from the wells, 32,299,056 gallons ; making a total of
76,731,201 gallons supplied to the town. The propor-
tion of Rivington to well water was as 11 to 8. During
the month the water in the reservoirs had risen from
below their respective overflows as follows :—Anglezark
rise, 5 feet 5* inches ; Rivington, 8 feet 8.1- inches. In
the week ending the Ist January, Roddlesworth reservoir
fell 4 inches ; Anglezark rose 5 feet I inch ; Rivington
rose 2 feet 8* inches; Prescot, 21 inches; Aspull was
steady ; Mountry steady. In the year 1858 the daily
guagings amounted to 44.75 inches. The monthly ditto
to 42.45 inches. For the last ten years the mean of the
monthly guagings was 45.90 inches. The escape from
the millstone is now 183,000 gallons daily,

Mr. Campbell reported that the Rodalesworth bore-
hole was discharging 21 gallons per minute, and the im-
pounded water was discharged 11 inches deep into the

Mr. Bennett said he had examined five samples of
water in the ante-room, and he regretted to say that
they confirmed the truth of Mr. Ryley's remark last
week as to the muddiness of the water. The Rivington
water was very much discoloured and muddy.
Mr. erelliu: How can you remedy it, Mr. Bennett ?
-Mr. Bennett: I was not the originator of the scheme,
and I have a right to complain of the muddy state of the
water. Ile maintained that they must have two sets of
pipes, for the water was not fit to drink that they, were
uow getting.
The samples were then brought in.

Mr. Earle said, no doubt the water was not as pure as
the former water, but he contended it was a great boon to
the inhabitants, and' it was not right for gentlemen to
make such complaints, when the half of England did not
know where to get water. . .

Mr. Bennett said, he did not see the force of that
argument, as they had always a plentiful supply.
Mr. Chilton said, he and some other gentlemen had
tasted the water, and they believed it excellent, but the
colour was not very good.
In reply to the Chairman, Mr. Duncan stated, that
they had the means of supplying Bootle.
'to a question from Mr. Jeffery, the Engineer replied,
that Rivington was supplied to Bootle on Sunday only.
Mr. Jeffery made some remarks as to the injustice of
charging the public 3d. extra in the pound, arising
from the deficiency of £15,000, last year, and
other £3,000, which made altogether £lB,OOO for
such water. It was extremely discorteous in gentlemen
who came from Aigburth, and who was not supplied
with this water, to come
_there and force it on the
inhabitants. .

kr. Earle : That is not the water supplied at your

Mr. Crellin : That is Rivington water unfiltered.
Mr. Jeffery : I understand that that is the Rivington
water, with the Redsand stone water mixed.
The Chairman . I believe it is the pure Rivington
water.

Mr. Stitt said, he had hopes that there would have
been some improvement in the reservoirs by this time,.
but he appealed to gentlemen, whether there was any
improvement. He did not see the slightestimprovement, iu
the sample bafore him, on that produced two years ago. The
engineer had told them frankly that there would be no
improvement in the reservoirs, but some gentlemen held
out that there would be an improvement, but it was now
shown that there was not the slightest improvement,
judging by the sample.
Mr. Ryley said some gentlemen attributed the colour
to heavy falls of rain - but . without heavy falls of rain
they could not obtain the water. He would not say it
was unwholesome water, but it was exceedingly unplea-
sant to look at, and it became a question whether they
should not have a discolouring process, for this was not
the water that ought to be supplied to Liverpool. If
Mr. Spencer's process could take the colouring from it,
he for one thought they ought to fall back upon that
process. He thought they could make it a great deal
better than what it was, and they were not doing their
duty if they did not do so.
The Chairman said. he differed from Mr. Ryley alto-
gether. He believed, as long as the people of Liverpool
were satisfied with the water, that committee should not
be dissatisfied. He heard none of these complaints, except
at the committee, and nobody denied that it was a healthy
water. If the pablic were . satisfied with it, then he did
not think the committee had anything more to do ; and
if the majority of the public came forward, and
stated that they were dissatisfied, then they should
move in it.
Mr. Ryley said, many gentlemen complained to him
on 'Change respecting the water.
Mr. Earle : They only complain to grumblers.
The Chairman called for the book containing the
number of complaints, and on reference, it was found
that there were only 91 complaints during the twelve

months.
The Chairman then said, he would express it through
the press, that all parties wishing to make complaints
should make them to the engineer.
Mr. Stitt said, a gentleman told him that he found
an " animal" in his water the other morning, and that
there was a great sediment at the bottom. He thought
they should make the best of the Rivington water, now
that they had it.
In reply to the Chairman, Mr. Dnncan said, that by
applying Mr. Spencer's process, they could take the
colour out of the water. lie did not think there would
be much improvement on the quality of the water.
Mr. Ryley said, the water he got was very satisfactory.
Mr. Stitt said, he could not give the water he got to
his domestics without first being filtered through a filter
that cost him £5 or £6, and what he would not give to
his domestics he would not give to the Toor ; as Mr.
'Earle had stated, the water at his house was perfectly
satisfactory, that showed that there was an unfair
distribution.
Mr. Earle: Don't make such a fuss about the poor,
You have not such sympathies for the poor.
Mr. Stitt begged Mr. Earle's pardon. lie had sym-
pathies for the poor, and they were not satisfied—a fact
he knew from door to door visitation.
Mr. Crellin said that the difference of the water in
some places arose from local causes.
Mr. Bennett contended that the water, according to
the sample, was not fit to drink.
The discussion then dropped, without any result.
Mr. Ryley remarked on the ganging, that it showed
that the season was not such a dry one as had been
represented.
The public business of the meeting then terminated.

COURT OF PASSAGE.
BEFORE MR. EDWARD JAMES, Q.C., ASSESSOR.
This Court sat yesterday in the Nisi Prius Court, at
St. George's Hall. The cause list contained two special
arguments, two demurrers, eighty-eight issues, and four
writs of inquiry, which will be taken before the Registrar
on Thursday next. -
ILLEGAL DISTRAINT—RUSHWORTII V. HUGHES.--
This was an interplcader action in which the plain-
tiff, Walter Rushworth, organ bnilder, 13, Islington,
sought to recover the value of goods which were
alleged to have been illegally seized by the Sergeant-
at-Mace, under a warrant of execution issued at
the suit of the defendant, Simon Hughes, against the
• plaintiff's father, William Rushworth, who formerly
carried on the business in Islington. Mr. Deighton
appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Aspinall for the de-
fendant. It was asserted, in the plaintiff's evidence, that
the father, who had been unwell for some time previously,
and being indebted to the plaintiff to the amount of
£l3O, transferred to him the business, stock-in-trade,
&c., on the 2nd of October last; and on the 27th of that
month the goods were seized at the suit of the defendant,
to whom the elder Rushworth was indebted ; and it was
to recover the value of the goods so seized that
the present action was brought. Plaintiff and his
father deposed to these facts, and produced. i 1 bill of sale,
an invoice, and an agreement in writing, to show that the
transactions between thorn were bona fide, For the

defence, it was contended that the whole case of the
plaintiff was a mere sham, and that the alleged transac-
tion between plaintiff and his father was not bona fide,
some proof of which might be inferred from the fact of
the plaintiff not having produced any books to show the
state of the accounts ; and there was no proof that the
son owed the father £l3O. The learned Assessor having
summed up, the jury found_a verdict for the defendant.

--A
11 N WITH MANY WlVES.—Smair BowA.N.—
In this caset Mr. Brett appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Aspinall for the defendant. Mrs. Margaret
Smith was the plaintiff, and Thomas Rowan was
the defendant. The action was brought to recover
payment for meat, drinking, washing, lodgings,. and other
necessaries, supplied to the defendant or to his wife at his
request, and for money paid to the defendant's use and
on account stated. The defendant pleaded that he was
never indebted, that he had paid the plaintiff,
that he had a set off, and that he never was
indebted within the six years before the commence-
ment of the suit. The plaintiff is a tailoress, and
sister of the defendant's wife, who had from the year
1345,. up to nearly the present time, boarded and lodged
with the plaintiff. It seemed that the defendant married
the 'sister of the plaintiff, a young woman who at the time
of the marriage in 1815, was only 20 years' of age. The
young woman's friends would not countenance the ad-
dresses of the defendant, and the two were married
without the consent of the young woman's parents-

Immediately after the marriage, the defendant sent his
wife back home to the house of her sister, where she
resided some time after .their marriage; and whilst the
young woman was there the defendant visited
her, slept . with her, and- said he merely
kept her there until he got a home ready for
her. Defendant, however, allowed matters to go on so
for years, and neglected to provide his wife with a home.

In 1850 defendant took the- girl away from her sister's,
and stated that he had got a home for her at Woodside
or Birkenhead. They lived there a week, at the
end of which defendant told his wife to go back to her
sister's. She went back there, and was constantly visited
'by the defendant, and there Mrs. Rowan had remained
up to the present time ; but, during the last four years,
the visits of defendant had ceased, and his wife had, in
fact, been deserted. The way. that defendant cajoled
the plaintiff and his wife into quietness was by
threatening them. Defendant told his wife that lie
did not mean to live with her, but that he was living,
and must live with a really fine woman (laughter)—

he could not, he informed his deserted wife, leave 'his
fine woman, by whom he had had a family, and that she

(his wife) do the best she could with herself, but

if she ever addressed him in the street when he hap-
pened to be with the fine woman, he would knock her

down. Matters had now arrived at such a state, that
this poor woman. the tailoress, after keeping her sister
so long, for the defendant's pleasure, felt compelled to
make her claim, and thereby cause him to perform some of
those duties of a husband which he had neglected.
Defendant., in his set off, claimed all that had been earned
by his wife during the time he did not live with her, and
the value of her services, also an account of any sums of
money that she might have received for her services, of
the amount of which he had no means of judging.
Defendant next tried to avail himself of the Satute of
Limitations, but the learned counsel who conducted the
plaintiff's case, said the plea was not so put as to enable
the defendant to do so, especially after the admissions he
made in his other pleas. It might be asked, observed the
learned counsel, who can this person be that he should
have two wives ? Who can he be that he should require
besides his wife, fine women ? It might be thought he
was the pampered son of some aristocratic owner of
three counties, who would not allow anybody to live in
them but himself ; or, at all events, it might be expected
that he would not be anything less than one of the
aristocrats of the three kingdoms, of whom we have
heard so much lately. But the defendant was not
an aristocrat, that was not . the reason he needed
two wives (or as many wives as he might have) ;
lie was simply—though in a good position, and
doing well— a master stevedore, and keeping a
'captain's boarding-house. It was unfair (continued the
learned counsel), fbr defendant to expect the luxury of
two or three wives, and the benefit of a fine woman at a
boarding-house, without paying for those gratifications.
He had paid nothing for his wife, for clothes, or anything
else, during thirteen years, and if he choosed to act so
like a profligate scoundrel, he must not expmt to go on
robbing the poor sister of his wife, not oven by mean
and dirty defence he had set up. The wife of the
defendant, a woman of plain and decent appearance, was
then called and deposed to the foregoing facts. She said,
defendant said to her, " You are not a fine woman
enough for me ; I must have a fair and handsomer
woman than you ; " and he after that lived with the flue
woman. The Assessor : Was she a fine woman ? Yes,
- rathel• (a laugh): Mr. Brett : Have you seen her ?

Witness': Yes; Oh, yes. The Assessor :" And she is a
fine looking woman ? Witness : She is a fine, gay-
looking, woman ; and he said lie must have a gay, good-
looking woman.. The plaintiff was then called, and
corroborated her sister's statement, but was unable
to prove that defendant had clearly contracted
with her for his wife's maintenance. The
learned Assessor held, that as no contract was made
out, there was no evidence to go to the jury. He thought
this was a case with which there ought to be an arrange-
ment. Mr. Aspinall suggested the withdrawal of a juror.
The Assessor thought the case was one which it would be
far the best course to refer to some gentleman out of
court, who, after hearing both sides, might deal with it
fairly and reasonably. The case was then referred to
Mr. John Yates.
SETTLING ONE ACTION, AND PRODUCING ANOTHER.
BRAESIIANV v. Gnwrrrus.—The plaintiff in this case was
Mr. George Bradshaw, and the defendant John Grif-
fiths. Mr. Deighton was for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Aspinall for the defendant. The plaintiff was a •
publican, and a short time ago he kept the Cheshire
Cheese, in this town. In November, 1857, he entered
into an arrangement with Thomas Erasmus, for a sale to
him of the public house, and on that occasion a sum of
£5O was deposited with plaintiff by Erasmus. It was
subsequently ascertained, however, that, from some cause
or other, the agreement could not be carried out, and
consequently the deposited £5O became a debt due from
the plaintiff to Erasmus. After that, Erasmus brought an
action with a view of recoverinm. £5O from plaintiff; and the
plaintiff, after consulting with his solicitor' on the matter,
gave the present defendant, Griffiths, the sum of £2O, in-
structing him to go to Erasmus, and with a view to stopping
the action, .to pay the. amount to Erasmus, on account.
Griffiths never handed the amount to Erasmus, and the
action went on ; and finally, the plaintiff was obliged to
pay the full amount of £5O to Erasmus. The action was
now brought to recover from Griffiths the £2O which he
was furnished with to enable him to settle the action.
brought by Erasmus. The defendant Griffiths gave a
very different version of the transaction. He stated that
he was was a public-house agent, and that he had been
employed by Bradshaw to sell the house in question, for
which he was to receive commission ; when the sale'
was partially effected with Erasmus, the plaintiff got
" rusty," refused to complete the agreement, and declined
to give back the £5O deposited by Erasmus. Soon after-
wards, Mr. Kent, of Birkenhead, under an execution,
seized the fixtures and other goods in the house of the
plaintiff, and the plaintiff at length went to jail as an
insolvent. At the instance of Griffiths, who still acted as
agent, Mr. Kent gave the plaintiff £lOO for the goodwill
of the house, in order that lie might carry on the business
while the plaintiff was in prison. At the same time the
plaintiff gave the defendant a sum of £2O, as his commis-
sion on the two transactions., A verdict was found for the
defendant..
ACTION TO RECOVER INTEREST.—MOLYNEUX AND
CO. V. CRAGGS.—Mr. Aspinall appeared iu this case for
the plaintiffs, and Mr. Deighton for the defendant. In
1847, the plaintiffs, who are distillers, in this town,
lent the defendant, a publican, £5O, and the question
now was, whether interest was payable upon that amount
or not. The plaintiffs alleged there was a contract to
pay interest, but defendant denied that statement. A
verdict was found for the plaintiffs for £24 11s., the
amount claimed.
"PECULTARVIEWS."—CtouGH V. LEIGH.—This was an
action to recover the sum of £2OO, money lent. , Mr.
Aspinall appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Brett for
defendant. It appeared that the defendant, who is a
surgeon, was recently in difficulties, and his effects were
advertised for sale, when plaintiff, who is a butcher, 'at
the suggestion of his own wife, went to defendant and
offered to assist him out of his diftculties. Ultimately
plaintiff lent the-defendant £2OO, defendant stating that
that amount would ..,,ret .him out of his difficulties. The
money was paid to the defendant in cash, and, after he
had received it, he refused to give plaintiff any acknow-
ledgment for the amount received. The action was now
brought to recover the money so lent. The counsel for
the defence said his client was a person who had
peculiar views (laughter), and, though he did
not deny that he had received the money, he had
his own notions of the conditions on which it was
advanced, namely, that it should never be asked for. till
the defendant could pay for it. The defendant. insteist. de
on telling his . own story. On being calledhien the
on
theurt
would excuse his having to mention
of Febru, ry last,
Lord in what he had say. On the 7
witness-box, the defendant said, he truthst
tirievolation asa in •
the Lord gave him certain words tinea -
eednatme ofC
could not be wasted in sernionis!ng, and must stop it.
—The learned Assessor said,hee runic
Witness then told his story, in which were frequent
allusions to the prompting,s he had received from the ord.
He reeeina the money, and plaintiff Said he would never

ask him for it, but would trtist to his honour entirely.
The Assessor It was a gift, in filet, and not a loan ?
Yes, so it wa.A. The Assessor : He trusted to• your
honour as to whither you would pal or not ? Witnes :
Yes, (laughter). It was the Lord's mt. Verdict for the
plaintiff.
SLANDER.--FlExustY. v. WALKER.—The plaintiff in
this case was an upholsterer, and the defendant a
surgeon, both residing in the same neighbourhood,
plaintiff's place of business being in Upper Hill-street.
Defendant had attended plaintiff and wife profot-
ssionally, and the parties were considered to be
on friendly terms until a short time ago, when
defendant lost a gold watch, and stated, as was alleged,
that plaintiff had stolen it whilst engaged in his' house.
After'that the defendant refused to attend plaintiff and
wife: The plaintiff denied any knowledge of the watcl4
and stated that defendant had charged_ several other
persons•with being guilty of this very offence. He now
sought- to recover damages for the' slander which had
been unjustly made against him. Mr. Aspinall
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brett for the defendant -
Verdict for the plaintiff, 405.. damages.

LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT.-YESTERDAY

BEFORE J. K. BLAIR, ESQ., 3UDOI

• •
WOOD tr. BiGLEY.—This was an action brought to
recover the sum. of £9 ss. 6d. for damages done to a cab.
The plaintiff. is.a car proprietor in this town. Mr. Hime
appeared for the plaintiff, and, Mr. Almond for the de-
fendant. On the 9th August last the plaintiff's sou was
driving a cab towards Bootle, along Great Howard-
street, between twelve and one o'clock in the morning.
He was met by Bigley, driving a shandry towards Liver-
pool with four persons inside. Bigley was driving at a
furious rate, and was drunk, and drove into the plain-
tiff's cab. The defendant's son being sworn, stated that
he was driving about eight miles an hour, and was on
his own side of the street; and when he saw the shandry
coming up he drew his horse's head against the lamp,
• and shouted to Big-ley, who was galloping, and could
not pall his horse up. The wheels of the shandry
took the bash off the plaintiff's cab and
broke it. The axletree was crookened, a shaft
splintered, and the springs were sprained all
through. The people in the shandry were all drunk.
The horse of the defendant fell, and the shafts of the
shandry were broken. The cab was repaired at Mr..
Rill-inlet's, and was fourteen days' being repaired..
Police officer, 561, stated that the parties were all drunk,.
the driver and the parties in the shandry. Mr. Falls,
who was in the plaintiff's cab at the time, corroborated
the above evidence.. Mr. Almond said he had been taken.
by surprise by the evidence adduced. Against the strong

evidence of the policeman and Mr. Falls he could not
make any defence. He thought, however, some items in
the bill should not be allowed. His Honon
verdict for the defendant for £8 lOs

The following is the business before the Court for the
January sitting :—Tuesday 4th, protection cases at hall
past ten o'clock, a.m., gaol cases at twelve o'clook, noon.
'Wednesday sth, judgement summonses, 70 original

cases at half past len O'clock, am. ; 60 original cases a
twelve o'clock noon. Thursday 6th, judgement sum
70 original cases at half past ten o'clock, a.m.
.ginal cases at twelve o'clock noon. Friday 7th
70 original cases at half past tet
-riginal cases at twelve o'clocl

mouses