Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-08-06 00:00:00

IMPORTANT UNDER TRE SMOKE PREVENTIO]

ACT.

THE FINAL ADJUDICATION ADJOURNED.

Yesterday; the presiding Magistrates, Messrs. SaiTth
and Dixon, were occupied for a considerable time at the
Police-court, in bearing cases which bai been summoned
by direction of the Hell h Committee of the town, for
their adjudication under the provisions of this act, which,
by section 126, enacts, That all manufactories and
steam-boat furnaces, &c., shall be so constructed as to
consume or burn the smoke arising from such furnace,"
&c. Mr. M'Gowan, the Deputy-town Clerk; attenled to
conduct the cases on behalf of the Health CM nictee, and
Wignall, the Inspector of smoke, was present to
prove evil of the offences for which the .parties.had been
summoned.

The first Case proceeded with WIS one of Breit impee.
tance, and one that has heretofore occupied much attention
and time. It was that in which Messrs. John Cannington
and Co , the eminent -glass manufacturers of Vauxhall-
road, were the defendants, and the Health Com-
mittee, on behalf of the public were- the complainants.
Mr. M‘Gowan -said : I have to trouble the bench with
several complaints under the Smoke Prevention Act, and
it is with some regret that I do so, after the many cases-
which have been heard, and penalties inflicted under the
same act; but so it is ; and if parties will offend, they must
be brought before you. The fi st case I shall go into is
that against the Messrs. Cennington's, because they have
been most frequently before this court: but I can say that
in the month of November last, when they were here, their
case was fully gone into before Mr Mansfield, and a great
number of scientific witnesses were then culled, from all
parts; and, after hearing that evidence, in the course of.
which it was clearly shown that the nuisance could be pre-
vented, the defendants were convicted, and a fine followed.
On this occasion, I am in a position to prove, by.
our Inspector, that the nuisance did exist on the-
day the complaint was made ; that he had frequently
served the defendants with notices •, and that on that
day the nuisance did continue; and beyond that, I shall
call before you a gentleman, who has devoted much time-
and attention to the subject. It is Mr. Green, of Phila-
delphia, and he will tell you that there is no occasion
for any smoke being emitted from such works. After
you have heard the case, I must call noon you to inflict
the f ill penalty. He then called Mr. Wignall, the
Inspector of Smoke Nuisances, who stated thdat on the
22nd of the last month he saw dense volumes• of black
smoke issuing from the defendants' cone from 852 to
9.7:1-. from 8.56 to 9 3,-and again fern 037t0 9 3-1 p.m.
During that period the smoke continued intense. It was
very bad smoke, and very black. The cones from which
the smoke was issuing are six feet in circumference at the
top, and they, were filled at the time, and scattered the
smoke all over the district. The defendants have been
before the court on a previous occasion (the 7th of Nov.
last) and were then fined £5. The machinery is in the
tame state now as it was then. Since then I have observed
the same offence being committed, and served them-
with notices on the 23rd of March, the 30:h of April; the •
Ist of June, and on the present occasion. Mr. Smith :
Was a similar offence committed on each occasion that you
served the nodes? The Witness : Yes, and betid, s that,
I have had several interviews with them, and have ex-
plained how the escape of smoke could be prevented.
There is no need of such smoke escaping as I should
complain of, with proper care and attention on the part of
the men employed. Mr. Cannington was about to question
the witness as to the smoke that issued from the furnaces
on the various times that the notices had been served, but
that was objected to by Mr. M'Gowan, who said the parties
were summoned for the offence on the 22nd of July, and
previous notices had only been served with a view of -
cautioning them. The Bench decided that they must con-
fine their inquiry to the day that the information was laid.
Mr M'Gowan then called Mr. Jacob Green, glass man-
ufacturer, of West Bromwich, near Birmingham, and also
of the Philadelphia Glass Company, who said, I have
devoted much time and attention to the means for prevent-
ing smoke in glass manufacturing and glass wok 3. I
have seen the defendants works, and I do not see any
reason for the existence of the nuisance from the smoke -
complained of, as, with proper care and attentionAt could
be dispensed with, and all the smoke might be con-
sumed. Mr. M‘Gowan : And to the advantage of the de-
feniants ? The Witness : Most decidedly sn, for the smoke •
could be converted into fuel, whereas, if it is allowed
to escape, it his a tendency to discolour the glass.
Mr. M'Gowan : Will you explain your views on this point!'
The Witness : Yes. The escape of the smoke 'could be
easily prevented, and by a very simple method. It is by
allowing a blast of air to enter at the top of the fistulae%
and another blast of air at the bottom. Between these•
two blasts of air, the smoke arising front the coals with
which the furn- ce is supplied, get connected with fuel by its-
cembustien, and thus adds to the heat, and save the coals.
Mr. M•Gowan : Thee you say. it would be a great saving
in coals, and would do away with the nuisance altogether ?-
The Witness : It would. Mr. M'Gowan : Yon say you
have seen the defendant's work., and have no doubt in-
spected them minutely. What do you think it would cost
the defendants to introduce the improvements you have
named ? The Witness : Perhaps from £lO to £2o.' Mr.
Mr IlltGlowan : But is there any difficulty in preventing
the smoke with the present appliances of the defendants.
The Witness : Certainly not, with proper care and atten-
tion on the part of the persons employed. Mr. M'Gowan
then addressed the Bench, observing that he clearly proved
his case, and should therefore call upon the Bench to inflict
the full penalty. Such had been the case en previous
inquiries, and he did not doubt but that the same princi-
ple would be adhered to, bat ha left himself entirely in
the hands of the bench, Mr. Cannington, jun. : -Gentle-
men, will you allow me to ask Mr. Wignall a question? •
The Bench : Most decidedly . Mr. Cannington Well,
then, I will ask hint this questiott. Does he not know that -
for ten or twelve hours that we do not feed our furnaces!'
Mr. Wignall : lam aware of it. Mr.- Cannington then
addresse 1 the bench contenffing that he had done all he -.
could to prevent the nuisance complained of, and had been
at a great expense- in so doing, but had not been able to
accomplish it ; and, with regard to the statement of Mr.
Green, he could only say, that he should be most
happy,
to allow Mr. Green to make the improve-
ments .he had suggested at the cost, but he did not
believe that they could be done for twice the sum. We
have been called upon to do the best we could to prevent
the nuisance. We 'have done so, and we have done all
that was rsquired of us by the scientific gentlemen who •
were called when we were surnmened in November last;
therefore I say we have done all that ingenuity and
scientifiskill could Suggest. Mr. Wybergh : By the ant
you are bound to take all practical means to prevent the
smoke. Mr.. Smith, 'the magistrate, here suggested that •
he thought; the bench was not competent to decide the
question, and suggested, as .Mr. Mansfield had heard the
case on previous occasions, that it had better be postponed-
until that gentleman was present. Mr. M.Gowan protested
against such a course being adopted, as he had clearly
provedehe case lie had proved that they had not urge=
proper care in the consumption of the smoke, and if such
a coarse was to be adopted, there would -be no end of the.,
expenses on the town, as Mr. Mansfield had decided that;.
all such cases as the .present were to be heard before.
thealey or unpaid magistracy, and that before him certain •
scientific evidence had been adduced, which was to
regulate all other cases;. but if the case was tobe adjoutneie
the only course tole adopted would be to have, on each
occasion, when persona were summ.onednthe sante scientific
evidence, which had Vet the town upwards of ilOO, brought.
before them, on every ocsaslon. He humbly submitted:
that he had proved'ttie case ; and if he had not done so.,
the defendants had done it themselves, for if they haft
not been confidant that they could consume the smoke,•
they would never have issued instructions and regulation*
to their men to the effeot that, for the first offence, they.
would be fined.2l 61; f•or the second oflenee, 5s ; and fors
the third offence, they would bi discharged. The Benin's
Those regulations show that the parties hare done elk they
could to prevent the nuisance. Mr. AlSGowan: I am,
of course, in the hands of the bench. It was„then decided
by the bench that thecase shoold ba adjourned until, Mr.
Mansfield was present to hear it.
Messrs. Berm Redfern and Co., glass .mannfeeturere,
were summoned for a similar offence; bat, on the request
of the complainant, the hearing of the case was postponed
for the present.
James Mu Tratt and Sens, manufaetueing chemists.
Vauxhall-road, pleaded galty to having Vie leted the same
law, and were fined 40i and costs.
Messrs. Adam Farris and Brothers, sugar refieeren of
Vauxhall-roa-I, were also summoned for the same offence-,
Mr. Wignall clearly proved the offence, and said that he-
had previously served the defendants with notices, and,
that they had be-en twice fined. Pined 40s and costs.
Mr. Thomas 011 is, of the steam saw mills, Richmend-
row, was also summoned for the same offence. Mr. Wignall
proved that be had seen sm .Ise issuing from the defendan.t's
premises on the 22nd of July, from 1:53 to 1'57 ;
from 2et to 21 ; again, front 217t0 2 , and again, from
348 to 321 ;' and that during the present year he had;22
served.notices upon him for a similar complaint in April,
May, Jdne, 'and on the present occasion. Mr. Olhss Me
possess to the Bench, admitted the fact, but denied. the
sibility to prevent smoke when coal was used, ana, as ha
-climax to his obeervations, stated that rather than be sum-
moned before the Bench for every offence, he etteuld pay an
annual amount not to be interfered with, The Bench
said they could not entertain such a pnOrnition and .44
the defendant 40s and cents,