The Sun.
London, England, 1855-01-18 00:00:00

THE SU N, LONDON, TIIIIRSDAY EVENING, JANUARY 18, 1855.

CITY 0 OEM' OF SEWERS.

The Commissionl 3rs assembled for the first time since
the holydays ; Dep, uty Peacock in the chair.
Mr. Daw (the c/ aief clerk) laid the following corre-
spondence before th e Court :
" Whitehall, Nov. 24, 1854.

" Sir,—l am d irected by Yiscoimt Palmerston to
refer you to a lett ;err from Mr. J. E. Fox, and to request
your report upon. his complaint of a nuisance from the
furnace smoke :at Messrs. Waterlow's premises within
the city of Lond,/n.
" am, Sir, your obedient servant,
"H. WADDINGTON.

" D. W. Harr ey, Esq., Commissioner of Police."
" ' JOHN ELLIO TT Fox, OF No. 40, FINSBURY-CIRCUS,
TO THE RIG.I.EIT HON. VISCOUNT PALMERSTON.
" Nor. 16 1854

My Lord„--As an old inhabitant of • Finsbury
Circus, I beg to call your Lordship's attention to an in-
tolerable smoke nuisance, arising from the premises of
Messrs. Waterlcr w and Co., of London-wall, from which
the whole neightm iurhood is rendered extremely uncom-
fortable, and the .circus is generally filled with it. It is
obvious to the po lice, but I believe they do not like to
interfere, because liVaterlow is one of the big men of
the council. I a m personally unknown to him, and
have no prejudice or bias, but, having called your Lord-
ship's attention to the public grievance, I trust you will
direct the necessah: ry measures to be taken for its speedy
abatement.

" ' I have the honour to remain,
" Y:".our Lordship's obedient servant,
" JOHN ELLIOTT Fox."

"THE SECRETA 11 Y OF THE CITY POLICE TO MR. H.
WADDINGTON.

" Chief-office, Nov. 30.
" Sir,—l am directed by the Commissioner of the City
Police to inforn t you, in reply to the letter addressed to
him by desire ef YiscountPalmerston, that upon its receipt
he immediately ordered inquiries to be made into the
subject of it, aadl now forward to you the report made
to him thereon.. The commissioner desires me to add,
that he has sent a copy of the correspondence and the
report of the c o nstable to the Court of the City Sewers,
to whom the a'b atement of the nuisance complained of
properly belon: g s.
6 4 I am, sir, your obedient servant,
" F. W. SAUNDERS, Secretary."
[Here folloviv the report of the officer, which stated
that there was :no doubt of the existence f the nuisance.]

" To THIC CITY COMMISSIONERS OF SEWERS.
" C thief-office, Old Jewry, Nov. 30, 1854.
. ..

" Gentlemen, ,—I have the honour to bring under
your notice tilt) correspondence whick has passed be-
tween the Tii usury and myself, in reference to a
nuisance from tile furnace•smoke at Messrs. Waterlow's
premises, with the city •f London.
"I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant,

" D. W. 11.11tVIZY."
" Whitehall, Dec. 14, 1854.
"Sir,—l ha ye laid before Viscount Palmerston your
report upon the smoke nuisance caused by Messrs.
Waterlow's fu mace chimney at London-wall ; and, as
it appears that a clear case of nuisance may be estab-
lished, Lord Palmerston thinks it will be best to take
proceedings by police information, under the Smoke
Nuisance Act of the last session of Parliament, and for
this purpose I enclose you ,his lordship's formal order.
" Lord Pal oierston has instructed the Solicitor of the
Treasury to support the information, if you will have
the goodness to communicate with him.
I am, sir, your obedient servant, -
" H. WADDINETON."
"' To THE COMMISSIONER OF THE POLICE OF THE

CITY OF LONDON AND THE LIBERTIES THEREOF.
" liome•ofFice, Whitehall.

" I, Viscount Palmerston, being one of her Majesty's
principal Sec rttaries of State, do hereby order and direct
you to lay in formation against James Waterlow, for the
recovery of penalty under the act of Parliament passed
in the 17th year of the reign of Queen Victoria, entitled
An act to abate the Nuisance arising from the Smoke
of Furnaces in the Metropolis and from Steam-vessels
above Londor-bridge,' for using in certain premises in
his occupation in London-wall a furnace not constructed
so as to consume or burn its own smoke, without using
the best practicable means of preventing or counteract-
ing such smoke, contrary to the provisions of the said
act.

" 'Given under my hand this 14th day of December,
1854. " g PALMERSTON.'
"To THE SECRETARY OF THE CITY POLICE, H. R.
REYNOLDS, ESQ., SOLICITOR TO THE TREASURY.
" Chief-office, Dec. 26, 1854.
" Sir—The Commissioner of the City Police having
received directions from Lord Palmerston to take pro-
ceedings by police information, under the Smoke Nui-
sance Act of last session of Parliament, against James
Waterlow, of London-wall, for using a furnace on his
Premises not constructed so as to consume smoke, &c.,
against the statute, I am desired to inform you that the
constable who can give evidence in the matter shall be
in attendance at your office at any time you may be
pleased to appoint.—l am, sir, your obedient servant,
" F. SAUNDERS, Secretary."
" Treasury, Dec. 28, 1854.
" Sir—l have to acknowledge the receipt of Mr.
Saunders's letter, dated December 26, informing me that
you have recefved instructions from Lord Palmerston to
lay an information against James Waterlow for using a
furnace not constructed to consume its own smoke, &c.
"On the 14th of December a letter from the Home-
office informed me that yon would communicate with
me, and desired me to support your information.
" Up to the present stage I take for granted that you
have pursued the same course that has been adopted in
the very numerous cases in which informations have been
laid by the commissioners of police of the metropolis—
that is to say, that you first satisfied yourself as a matter
of fact that the furnace was used at the place in ques-
tion, not constructed, &c., without using, &c. (as in the
act) ; that you then reported to Lord Palmerston your
recommendation that an information should be laid, and
furnished his lordship with the evidence upon which you
proposed to support it ; that Lord Palmerston adopted
your recommendation, and forwarded to you an order,
under his hand, to lay the information.
" The next step is to lay the information and to take
out a summons fixing the day for hearing.
" For this purpose I enclose a draught form of infor-
mation that has been adopted in the metropolitan dis-
trict, which will require to be filled up with names, dates,
places, &c., altering also the formal description of the
justice, commissioner, constable, &c.

" Itwill be convenient to keep a copy of the informa-
tion for the use of counsel, and to forward it to me when
the day for hearing is fixed, with Lord Palmerston's
order and the full written evidence of the witness pro-
posed to be called.
"I presume that some scientific witness has examined
the premises (without whose evidence it is sometimes
difficult to negative the use of the best practicable
means of counteracting the smoke,' mentioned in the
act).

" And, as a matter of convenience, I may add that,
as a great number of these cases are now going on in
various courts, it would be worth while to ascertain at
the chambers of Mr. Bodkin (who attends o• the part of
the Treasury) upon what days he will be able to attend
the hearing of Mr. Waterlow s case.
"I am your most obedient servant,
"JOHN GREENWOOD."
"THE SECRETARY OF THE CITY POLICE TO MR. JOHN

GREENWOOD.

"City Police-office, Dec. 30.

" Sir,—l am directed by the Commissioners of the
City Police Force to acknowledge the receipt of your
communication of the 28th inst., enclosing a draught
form of information. Beofre any further step is taken
the commissioner desires me to forward for your perusal
a copy of the correspondence which has taken place re-
lative to this matter, and to inform you that nothing
more has been done than is therein disclosed.

" I am, Sir, your obedient servant,.---
" F. SAUNDESS, Secretary."
" Treasury, Dec. 30.
"Sir,—l have to aoknowledge the receipt of a letter
of this day's date from Mr. Saunders, forwarding to me
by your desire a copy of a correspondence which has
taken place relative to the smoke at Messrs. Waterlow's.
" The bearer (Mr. Duddy) was also good enough to
show me a copy of the City of London Sewers Act, 1851
(mentioned in section 7 of the Smoke Nuisance Abate-
ment Act of 1853), in which powers are giv9n to the
Commissioners of Sewers to take certain proceedings in
case of nuisance by smoke.

" I have, of course, no authority to interfere in any
such proceedings. The only instructions I have received
from the Home-office are to support your information
against Messrs. Waterlow, to be laid under the Smoke
Nuisance Abatement Act of 1853, under the order and
direction of Lord Palmerston.
"I am, Sm.'
"JORNGREENWOOD."
"City Police-office, Jan. 8.
" Gentlemen,—l have the honour to transmit for
your consideration the further communications which
have been made to me by Lord Palmerston upon the
alleged smoke nuisance caused by Messrs. Waterlow's
furnace, as also a copy of the latter I received from tho
Solicitor of the Treasury, to whom I represented the
provisions of the law touching similar occurrences within
the city.

" It-would seem it belongs to the Commissioners of
Sewers to deal with this and similar occurrences.
" I am, gentlemen, &c.,
"D. W. HARVEY.

" To the Commissioners of Sewers."

Mr. WATERLOW ( a member of the Court) said that an
error ran through the documents read by the clerk, his
name being used instead of that of his son, who, how-
ever, did not wish to raise any technical difficulty with a
view of getting rid of the complaint. He himself had
nothing whatever to de with the premises. Ever since
the complaint was made they had been endeavouring to
abate the nuisance, and had been in communication with
the engineer of the commission for this purpose. Expe-
riments had been tried for the last six weeks to consume
the smoke, which, however, seemed occasionally to fail.
The engineer was still endeavouring to effect an altera-
tion which, it was hoped, would entirely abate the nui-
sance complained of.
Mr. Deputy llAnnlsox—Wre have only one course
to pursue—namely,
set,oaa
proceednthat uthnedyer
willthe roerfdeerrentche:
and I hope that this commission will not depart from
their ordinary
necessary proceedings to be taken. (Hear, hear.) I
move " that Messrs. Waterlow be summoned to the
court."
Mr. WATERLOW—I second the proposition.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Mr. Daw was then directed by the Court to inform
Lord Palmerston, by letter, that Messrs. 'Waterlow
would be summoned to the court forthwith.
The inspector, in answer to questions put by the

thurt, stated that an apparatus had been applied to the
furnace, which he bad no doubt would remedy the evil
ccmplained of, and that he had seen no smoke issuing
from the chimney that morning.
The Court then adjourned.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Jan. 17.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fonblanque.)
IN RE DAVID LEOPOLD LEWIS.
This was the first meeting, for proof of debts and
choice of assignees, in the bankruptcy of David Leopold
Lewis, described as a merchant, of Salters'-hall-court,
Cannon-street, but whose principal dealings had been as
a discounter of bills.

Mr. Chidley tendered a proof for 2,5001. on behalf of
Mr. Mould, on account of the bankrupt's dishonoured
drafts upon Mr. Hudson, M.P. The proof was admitted.
Mr. M‘Leod tendered a proof for 53,1901. on behalf
of the assignees of George Hennett. There had been a
judgment for 63,0001., but some proceedings were now
pending in Chancery. Mr. Lewis had said that he was
only the agent of Mr. Hennett, and that though there
might be a legal claim, there was no right in equity.
Mr. Bagley, for the bankrupt, said that there was no
admission on his part of the debt. The bankruptcy was
on his own petition, and ho was willing to abide by the
decision of the court on this claim.

His Honour said he would admit the proof, subject to
investigation, to be turned into an absolute proof unless
impeached before the first dividend.
Mr. Lucette tendered a proof for 25,5001. on account
of the bankrupt's drafts on Mr. Hudson, M.P. Mr.
Lucette was sworn, and stated that he was a sharehroker,
and had been so for seven years. He had had many
transactions with Mr. Mackenzie in respect to bills
and Westminster Improvement Bonds. Mr. Lewis's
name was on some of the bills. The money was lent
to Mr. Mackenzie on Lewis's bills. He bad an account
with the London and County Bank. 'He made the ad-
vances in the shape of short bills. lie had not these
short bills merely as the agent of Mackenzie, to get
them discounted. No other person was interested
in the bills. They were not lent to him for the
purpose of enabling him to make a proof against the
estate. The bills might or might not have been in his
possession a week ago.
The Commissioner— Might or might not is no answer.
Were they
Witness—They were.

After some further questions,

His Honour said that sufficient had been shown to in-
duce him not to admit the proof until after the choice of
assiwnees.

Mr. Chidley said there had been transactions to the
amount of thousands, he might say 'hundreds of thou-
sands, between the bankrupt and Mr. Mackenzie. The
latter did not wish to come forward to prove, as this
would lead to a public investigation. He was connected
with the bankrupt, and the object was to get the choice
into his own hands.

Some other proofs were tendered and disposed of in a
similar way. _ _

Mr. Henry Taylor, of South-street, Finsbury, a cre-
ditor for 5,0001., was then appointed trade assignee, and
Mr. Chidley the solicitor in the case.
The debts proved during the day amounted to about
2,000/. ; the total liabilities are said to exceed 150,0001.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Murphy.)
IN RD RICHARD FLEXMORR.
This insolvent, who described himself as a comedian
and professor of dancing, applied under the Protection
Act.
Mr. Sargood supported. There was no opposition.
The case was taken out of its turn, as it was stated
that the insolvent had to return to Manchester to per-
form in the evening.
Mr. •-Commissioner Murphy examined the schedule,
and seeing no reason to refuse a day to be named for the
final order, it was appointed for the 14th of March.
Protection renewed.

which was that I received an order for Ba. 6d., on the
29th of Dec., and that was the only sum I received
from the company.
Mr. Henry Schuetze Wilson, assistant-secretary to
the Electric Telegraph Company, said—lt is my duty
to attend to all complaints relative to overcharge.
I remember Messrs. Hooper and Baker claiming the
return of Bs. in November last. I made inquiries,
and finding that only 6d. had been paid for porterage,
I made out an order for Es. 6d. payable at any of the
company's offices. I then gave the order and a
letter of explanation, written by the prisoner by my di-
rection, and addressed to Messrs. Hooper and Baker,
to the prisoner, whose duty it waz to see the letter
copied into the letter book, and then to enclose the
order and letter in an envelope and give it to the pcisting
clerk for delivery. On the 20th of December I received
another application from Messrs. Hooper and Baker on
the same subject, but as the prisoner absented himself
from the office it was not attended to until the 24th,
when I went to a drawer used by the prisoner to look
over his papers in order to forward the business in his
absence. To my surprise I found the letter addressed
to Messrs. Hooper and Baker, but the order for Bs. 6d.
was not with it. I immediately inquired why the letter
had not been sent, and discovered that the order had
been paid at the counter to the prisoner. I then wrote
another order, which was paid to Messrs. Hooper and
Baker's clerk. The order produced is the original order
I wrote and-gave to the prisoner.
Mr. Cadman said—l am clerk at the counter of the
Electric Telegraph Office in Lothbury. On the evening
of the 27th of November last the prisoner presented the
order for Bs. 6d. produced, and I paid him that amount.
The memorandum "taken by me to gi4e explanation,"
which appears at the foot of the order is in the prisoner's
writing, but it was written before he presented it.
Mr. Baker here said'l have not received any explana-
tions from the prisoner relative to the first order.

Packwan, a detective officer, said—l apprehended the
prisoner on Saturday evening last, at 15,. Cadogan-ter.
race, Chelsea. I told, him I wanted him on a &Large of
receiving 10s. to send 'to Lady Clifton and not doing so.
He said he had seen the secretary of the company, and he
understood if he paid the money he would not be prose-
cuted. When leaving the house he said, "This is just
what I expected."
The solicitor for the prosecution here applied for a
remand as he was Not yet prepared to go into the other
cases.

The prisoner, who appeared not in the least abashed at
being placed in 'such adegrading position was then re-
manded.

CLERKENWELL—WiIIiam Barker was charged
with a murderous assault on his wife.

The complainant, a poorly clad woman, said—l have
been married for eight years to the defendant. Yester-
day morning he most cruelly struck me on the head
with his fist, and knocked me down, and whilst I was
on the ground he kicked me in the stomach and on :my
breast. I now feel most dreadful pain. After he had
kicked me and nearly made me senseless, he seized me
by the hair of my head, dragged me out of the room,
and threw me down'a whole flight of stairs, and I would
have gone down the second flight only a woman was
standing in the lobby and stopped me. (The coin
plainant here produced an old but well-used knife, it
appeared a formidable weapon, and was sharp at the
point from frequent use and cleaning.) Yesterday
morning, before he struck me first, be attempted to
stick this knife in my throat, and when I held up my
right hand to ward off the blow the knife cut my. wrist.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—Has any surgeon seen your wound ?
Complainant—No, sir, I put some ointment on it my-
self, but I feel so weak in my breast that after I leave
here I will go:to the hoepital.
Mr. Turner, warrant officer—Your worship, after the
complainant took out the warrant yesterday she went to
a public-house, in which the defendant was, and she
scratched his face as you see it. (The man had the
visible effects of nails on his countenance.)
Mr. Tyrwhitt—How did that happen .

Complainant—Why, your worship, after I left here,
I went home ; I found my children without anything to
eat, and knowing where my husband was, I sent a neigh-
bour to ask him for some money to get bread for thers.
.He told her that she was to tell me that he had spent
6s. sd. that day to himself, but giving the woman 10.
told her to buy "tarts" for the children. Feeling aggra-
vated, I did go to ask him what he meant, when he told
me to go and obtain money as all women could, and
used other filthy language towards me, so that I did
scratch his face.

Mr. Tyrwhitt—What is your husband, and what
money does he give you to support your family ?
Complainant—He is a cab-driver, and has only given
me 10d. for the lait three days, and when he beat me I
had neither fire nor victuals in the house.
The defendant here said that his wife was a most
dreadful temper, and he had witnesses to prove that she
had provoked him and others to assault her.
Mr. Tyr whitt—But in any way her conduct would not
warrant you in using a knife or kicking her. I must re-
mand yon until a medical man decides the state in which
your wife is from your most brutal conduct.
The defendant, who is of a most repulsive aspect, was
then removed. He was scarcely ciut of the court before
two parties slipped forward and asked if the charge was
not bailable.

Mr. Tyrwhitt—Certainly the misdeamenour is bail-
able, but as he has used a knife, and the kick on the
breast may produce a cancer, I don't feel warranted in
giving any leniency to the defendant for an offence that
may turn out to be a felony.
THE Pocat S. has sent 10s. in postage
stamps, and k. Q. ss. in porsta.go St.upay Ulu lo.LL•ca lA/i
applied for the use of Garford's children.

BRIGHTON COUNTY BENCH.

orn the Brighton Gazette.)

On Monday, at the Brighton Town Hall, before Mr.
Carpenter, and Mr. T. J. Bellamy, magistrates, Louisa
Humphreys preferred a charge of assault against Lady
Boughton, who resides in Brunswick-square, and with
whom the complainant stated that she had resided as
lady's maid for some months. The complainant was re-
presented by Mr. G. Faithfull, jun. ; the defendant, who
was not in court, by Mr. Lamb.
Mr. Faithfull, in addressing the bench on the part of
the complainant, said he understood that she had been
only a short time in the service of Lady Boughton as
lady's maid, and the complaint she had to make was that
Lady Boughton bad committed an unprovoked assault
upon her en the 3d inst. There was no doubt that
looking at the relative positions in life of the complainant
and the defendant, there might be some difficulty in
dealing with the case ; but if any feeling of sympathy
was to be enlisted on either aide, it ought to be on the
side of his client, and if he should prove that the assault
had been committed, the social position of the defendant
would be an aggravation, rather than otherwise, of the
offence. He felt satisfied that if his client had committed
an assault upon a lady in her bedroom, it would have
been elear that a lady ought to be protected from the
violence of her servants ; and he thought that the same
amount of justice ought to be meted out to the servant.
Mr. Bellamy—l think Lady Boughton ought to be
here. It is always a rule for defendants to be in attend-
ance.

Mr. Faithful' said it was not compulsory for her lady-
ship to be present.

icir. Carpenter—lt is not the practice in this court for
the defendant to be present, provided the party appears
by a solicitor.
Mr. Bellamy—l beg pardon ;it is the practice. I have
been in the commission 30 years ; and I ought to know.
Mr. Faithfull—l wish her ladyship was hero.
Complainant examined—l am lady's maid to Lady
Boughton. I have been in her service four months
yesterday, and I am to leave in a week. I recollect
Wednesday, the 3d of January. Lady Boughton,
on that morning, rang for me at half-past nine, for the
purpose of assisting her to dress. I went imrne-
dia ely. After some little conversation on indifferent
subjects, Lady Boughton said, "If I had known you
came frorn.a low lodging-house, or a house of call, you
should never have entered into my service." She then
referred to a house in Temple-street, where my sister
and brother in-law live ; and they have an elderly lady
lodging with them. I told Lady Broughton that my
sister had one lady lodging with her, and that she
was perfectly respectable. Lady Broughton imme-
diately replied, " A lady, not a gentlewoman ; a lady,
I perfectly understand what that means." I then re-
ferred her to Mr. George Wagner, the clergyman of
the district, who was well acquainted with the lady
lodging with my sister. Upon this she ordered me to
leave the room ; but before I had time to do so she struck
nte three times on my breast and shoulders with con-
siderable force. I gave her no provocation whatever.
When I entered Lady Boughton's service, I went with
the highest character.
Mr. Lamb—l believe you: had notice to quit from
Lady Boughton.
Complainant—l had.
Had she not had reason to complain of your conduct ?
—I asked her to assign a reason • but I was answered
by her saying that I must not ask questions.
Had she not had reason to complain of year mode of
dressing ?—She had no reason ; but she did complain.
No matter what I wore, the cap was stinking, the dress
was stinking, and she called me ugly eyes, and told me
to keep my ugly head out of her sight—(a laugh)—and
if she heard my .veice, she would call out, "Is that my
maid? I suppose she fancies she is in her sister's lo:s•
lodging-house." _ _ _

On the morning of the alleged assault, what was the
first part of the conversation ?—She complained that
my dress was in the low lod4ing-house condition,

In consequence of the impertinence of you; reply,
in answering something that was said to you, did she
not tell you to leave the room T—She did not give me
time to do so.

Did you not refuse to leave the room ?—I had not
time to do so.

Was not Lady Boughton compelled to ring for an-
other servant, in consequence of your refusal to leave
the room ?—Not till she had inflicted the blows upon
me.

Mr. Lamb, in addressing the bench for the defendant,
said her ladyship had had occasion more than once to
complain of the manner in which her maid dressed, and
told her she ought to dress herself in a different man-
ner; and when she spoke to her about her dress on the
morning in question the complainant said something
offensive, and defendant then told her to leave the room,
and at the same time rang the bell for another servant.
As far as he was instructed, her ladyship had not the
least conception or the remotest idea of lifting her hand
against her maid.

Mr. Carp,A3,:r said, in ordinary ease, sncis a cliaTe,
In all proL3hility, would have been disan6::ed, or, al, ati
events, a very low fine would have been inflicted, so
low, perhaps, as 6d. ; but, in Lady Boughton's ease,
we must make the Aue 11; and the cote.