The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-01-21 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 20.

Sittings at Guildhall, London, before the hoed Chief Justice
ABBOTT sad Spot' Juries.
SALMON V. BE !MET'.
This was an action to recover damages for a nuisance occasioned
by tlic erection and working
,of the defendant's steam engine used
by him for the pOrpoSe of pi-totting.
Mr. Gurney, Mr. Park, and Mr. Tindall, were Counsel for the
plaintiff.; Mr. Searlett, Mr. Brougham, and Mr. Pollock, for the
defendant.
The cireurnitances of the plaintiff"s case were, that Mr. Tlensley,
who was a printer in an extensive way, had a large printing
establishment in 80lt-court, fleet-street, where he had erected a
steam engine of considerable power, for the purpose of working the
presses upon the newly invented principle, first introduced by his
(Mr. Bensley'a) father. The plaintiff resided in Gough square,
and his house adjoined the printing house of the defendant. in
consequence of the working of the de'endant's steam engine. the
plaintiff had sustained Considerable annoyance in his own comforta,
and a very great loss by his lodgers having from time to time left
his house, all of whom assigned the nuisance arising from the '1
engine as the cause of their so doing. This nuisance consisted in
the extraordinary noise occasioned hyrhe working of the machine;
the smoke that was emitted from its chimney, and the great degree of
heat that the furnace of the engine produced. The noise was such
that it frequently awoke the plaintiff and the other persons residing
in his house outof their sleep, and caused a vibration sufficiently great
to make the things that were in the house shake. The plaintifFand
his inmates were also in continual alarm front the danger of the burst-
ing of the boiler,—an accident having already happened on the same
premises by fire, which, however, it was admitted, was not pro-
duced by the steam-engine. An to the smoke, and flakes of sooty
matter that arose front the engine, the nuisance was so great, from
that circumstance, that it was rendered impassible for the plaintiff
to open any window of his house. without having the room imme-
diately covered with what was termed blacks, or soot falling from
the dark thick smoke that issued from the chimney, and which the
ton incumbent air would not carry off. The heat, too, that was oc-
casioned by the intense fire that was necessary to set the engine at
work was so considerable, that it caused a very unusual and un-
healthy decree of temperature in the plaintiff's houie, the walls of
which were rendered quite hot by it.
This was the substance of the plaintiff's case.
Mr. SCARLET T argued, that however desirable It might be that
the arts and manufactures of this metropolis should be carried on,
yet it could not be for a moment tolerated that they should be so to
the prejudice of any man's health, or to the detriment of his pro-
perty ; and that wherever a nuisance arose, whether from the use
of machinery, which in its proper application, Its that of a strain
engine when carefully worked, was calculated to render the public
a very great benefit; still that nuisance, if it tended to injure either
the whole of his Majesty's subjects, or a private individual only,
must, notwithstanding its utility in other respects, be instantly
abated.

Several witnesses were then called, whose evidence went chiefly
to prove the noise that was occasioned by the engine, and which
they described to be like the rumbling of thunder. The inconve-
nience experienced by them from this circumstance they represented
to be very considerable.
Ann Jones, in the course of her cross-examination, was asked by
the ATTORNEY-GENERAL whether she recollected him ?
Witness--Yes, sir, we are old acquaintances, I presume. (A
laugh.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--Perhaps you recollect what I
allude to ? _

11 itneas--I have no recollection whatever, nor do I wish to
have. (A laugh.)
This witness spoke of the noise as being quite horrible ; and
Mary Byford, another witness, said they were poisoned every day
of their lives by the blacks, from the kitchen to the garret.
The ATTORNEY•GENERAL then addressed the Jury for the
defendant. He observed, that this cause was certainly of very
great importance to his client, and he thought he might with pro-
priety say, that it was equally important to the public. If the
plaintiff should obtain a verdict, then, as far as the defendant was
concerned, he must entirely abandon his business. Every body
knew that printing on a large scale was now in almost every in-
stance carried on by machinery, and he hoped he should be able to
convince the Jury that it was impossible that it could be better con-
structed than the machinery in question, and if they should be of
opinion that the plaintiff must notwithstanding hare their verdict,
then it would be impossible for the defendant to carry on his bust.
ness either there or anywhere else ; for he could not think it would
be said that that situation was more objectionable for such a ma-
chine to be worked than any other place in the metropolis ; and
therefore, if the defendant was to be prevented from continuing his
business there, the same reason would hold good for preventing
him from doing it anywhere else within the limits of London. It
was impossible that he could go two or three miles from the me.
tropolis with his steam-engine, as his business would by that mea.
sure be entirely suspended, as he must necessarily have intercourse
with printers, authors, publishers, and others connected with his
trade, all of whom were living in the very heart of the city ; there-
fore he (the Attorney-General) was right in saying. that this action
was of vital importance to his client. The plaintiff's Counsel said,
that this machinery was a nuisance, that the noise was very great
and disagreeable—granted ; but shall this great and important im-
provement in the arts be continued, or shall it be abandoned, be- '
cause in its operations it occasions a trifling annoyance to a few in-
dividuals ? Did not every manufactory afford matter of complaint ?
but were they therefore to be suppressed ? We were not living in
the peaceful quiet of a country village, where the rumbling of
a single carriage would he sufficient to shake the delicately
strung nerves of its inhabitants ; no, we were speaking of an
establi.hment in this great metropolis, where a sort of licende was
granted to noise and smoke, and other inconirnoding circumstances
that were not to be avoided in the carrying on the extensive affairs
which constituted its wealth and greatness. The question was,
should printing in future be carried en by machinery, or should all
those great and important advantages which had been introduced
into it, be for ever abandoned ? This action was not an attack
upon the defendant. but upon the steam engine ; and, therefore, the
question was, whether we were to continue these great national im-
provements, or should we retrograde fifty years in the art of print-
ing ? But where was this business carried on ? It was carried on in
the very vicinity of all the great establishments of the city—just op..
positc to it was the great Gas Company which supplied the principal
part of London with light; and there were the large forges of Mr.
Huger. which were in his opinion a much greater annoyance than
the defendant's steam engine: so that the situation for the defendant's
machinery was as eligible as could be had ; and he would ask in
what part of the metroolis could his printing business be o arr:ed
on if not in the spot where it now was situated ? It was said th oe
were three grounds of complain' against the defendant. He (the
Attorney.deneral) should not have ventured to address them so
confidently on those grounds, if he had not himself-been on the
premises and witnessed the machinery in its fullest operation.
First, it was said that the plaintiff's house experienced a great heat
from the steam engine; this was impossible, for the engine was
detached twelve feet from any part of the plaintiff's house. The
witness who spoke to this fart admitted she kept a large tire, and
never folt the wall nearest the printing-house, so that her evidence
was incapable of supporting this part of the case, and he should
therefore dismiss it. But now look at the complaint as to the
smoke. He would ask whether, in this crowded metropolis, it was
at all extraordinary that a toilet, as described by the witness,
would not, on the soot and other matter coming down the chimney
where no lire was kept, become in a few hours quite black ? He
was sorry to say this was the exact situation in which he was him-
self at that moment placed. But as to the soot coming, is the pre-
sent instance, from the &fondant's chimney, it was impossible, for
his Cue was actually 100 feet from the ground, and fifty feet above
the rooms in question. He would ask in what direction must the
smoke go to get into the windows, or go down the chimney ? In
certain states of the atmosphere, he allowed that the smoke being
prevented by the density of the air from rising, would go horizon-
tally for sonic distance ; but here the smoke must hare descended
peopentlicularty to have gone dawn the chimney of the plaintif's
house, which was directly under that of the defendant's-
A Juryman--I really think, Mr. Attorney-General, you may
save yourself a great deal of trouble as to the smoke and heat,
for we are satisfied on those points—l beg your pardon for inter-
rupting you.
The AyToasore-firscnat.—l am much obliged to you: but
(he continued) if the Jury had thus discovered the witnesses tolhtv•
been guilty of exaggeration in those two points of the case, what, he
would ask, was the degree of credit due to them as to the whir
yoint—that of the noise ? But let its look at this point of the corn.
plaint- Where were they while investigating this question ?
Were they not in a business-cloing,bustling, transacting metropolis ?
not in the calm retirement which the country afforded; and yet it
was remarkable that almost all the witnesaes had said they came
from the country. But were they to put down trade, FuTend the
operations of this great city, and render all the labours of mecha-
nical genius of no avail, because of an occasional noise? Why,
who that lived in l'all.mall was not annoyed every Tuesday and
Saturday night by the carriages that were going to and nom the
Opera : but were those persons to be at liberty to indict the parties
for &nuisance ? and should they be allowed to put down the ()pens
because there was this occasional ,"sturbance of their domestic re.
pose? lie did hope, and indeed felt confident. that so respect.
able a Jury as he was then addressing would feel tie importance
of the question they were called upon to decide; and having
theinselses 'jewel the premises where the nuisance complained of
existed, they would mine to the concluaion, that in a metropolis
like the noises that were necessarily occasioned by the work-
ing of such extensively useful machinery as that they had seen,
were no more than most be tolerated; and that to call upon the
defendant to suppress, would, in effect, be striking a roost alarm-