The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-03 00:00:00

POLICE INTALIGENCE.-4pril 2.

WESTMINSTER.—Mr. Payntor was engaged
for . some hours in hearing a case in which the
Thames Conservancy summoned the Chartered Gas
Light and Coke Company, Westminster, for allow-
ing offensive matter to run into the Thames, con-
trary to. Act of Parliament.
Mr. 81eigh, instructed by Mr.,Frere, of the firm
of Frere and ttended to prosecute • and Mr.
Morgan, of the Co.,fi 'rm of Humphries and Morgan,
conducted the defence. _ _

Mr. Sleigh, after reading the words of the act
under which the summons had been taken out (the
Thames Conservancy Act, see. 102), stated the facts
as afterwards proved in evidence, and observed that
the nuisance complained of was not only highly pre-
judicial to health, but destroyed both animal and
vegetable life in the river, it was therefore abso-
lutely necessary that some steps should be taken in
the matter, and he need hardly say that the Thames
Conservancy had come forward and taken the matter
up purely from public motives. He then called
Elisha Trotter, who said he was a carpenter. On
the 26th February he was upon the wharf at Mill-
bank, fronting the Gas Company's works, when he
smelt a very disagreeable odour at the distance of
100 yards from him. He then perceived something
running from a drain at the wharf, and on dipping
his finger into it and smelling it he found it to be
gas refuse. It was proceeding from a brick drain,
which had an iron grating in front of it nine inches
across, and the discharge formed a gutter in the mud
on the shore. On the same day he collected some
in a bucket, afterwards putting it in a bottle, which
he handed over to Mr. Lord, the superintendent of
the company's works. He also collected some on
the 12th and 15th of March, and calculated that
the matter was running at the rate of a gallon
per minute. It smelt very offensive, and strongly
impregnated the air. There was a pipe affixed to
the drain, and some barges moored close to it for
the purpose of removing the offensive matter.
Dr. Letheby, medical officer of health for the City
of London, was examined, and said all the bottles
which ho produced contained a liquid which had
been given him by Mr. Lord, and was gas refuse.
He found the; matter in all of them to be strongly
charged with sulphuretted hydrogen and sulpho-
cyanide of ammonia, which was the especial con-
stituent of gas water. The matter contained the
ammonia to the extent of 68 grains to the gallon,
the bulk of all the samples produced being ammo-
niaeal matter. One sample was of a very dangerous
nature, containing no less than 203 grains of am-
monia to the gallon. The liquid produced was of
a noxious natiire, and detrimental to both animal
and vegetable life, and the atmosphere impregnated
by the effluvia would be very unwholesome. This
refuse matter with a strong solution of ammonia
was valuable, as it it could be sold; but it often
occurred that gas companies could not sell it, and
they must get rid of it in some way. He had known
them obliged to evaporate it under the retorts.
In cross-examination by Mr. Morgan, who had
been detained until after the first two witnesses
had been examined, Dr. Letheby said common
sewage was detrimental to health, but the fluid he
had examined was very greatly so. The bulk of
the matter in the bottles was what was termed gas
refuse.

Mr. Sleigh remarked, that by the 166th section
of the act sewage was permitted to run into the
Thames.

Mr. Evans was then cross-examined by Mr. Morgan
—After putting in a plan of the wharf, with the
drain spoken of and the pipe above it, he said the
refuse from their pipe was shut off by a stopcock
and valve, and unless the pipe was broken the
liquor could not run into the brick drain, and this
could not be, or the leakage would be still going on.
The company sold this gas liquor ; it was, there--
fore, to their interest to save it, and not let it run
away, and the contractor was bound to take it
away, which was done by affixing a hose to the pipe
and running it off into barges. They discovered a
small leakage on the 12th, and sent down at once
and had the pipe repaired, but he did not believe
that a gallon of liquor had run away altogether.
The leakage was extremely small, and as a com-
pany they took every possible care that no offensive
matter should flow into the river.

Mr. Sleigh then called William Pearce, a fisher-
man, at Strand-on-the Green, in the employ of the
Conservancy, who gave similar evidence to that
already detailed. The liquor, when he first saw it,
was running from a hole in the wall, at the rate of
five gallons per minute along the shore. A barge
standing near prevented him. seeing distinctly from
where it ran, but he saw it twice afterwards run-
ning from the drain. It was not running into a
barge.
Cross-examined—There was a hose on the wharf
above discharging the liquid matter into the barge.
William Gardner, clerk of the works under the
Metropolitan Board of Works, also gave similar
evidence. Ho saw refuse running from the drain
on the Bth o f March, at a time when there was no
barge near it. He saw liquor running again on
the 19th, but it was at that time mixed with
sewage.

Mr. Evans here pointing out that the liquid'
might have run from the pipe above to the drain at
the time of discharge into the barge, and Mr. Payn-
ter having concurred in this view of the matter,
Mr. Sivigh remarked that prouruing such to be

the case, no matter how the liquid got into the
Thames, the company were equally liable.
Mr. Paynter did not think such was the law.

Mr. Sleigh observed Ll 4, Dr. Lel ehy` had in-
formed him that is a trial before the Lord Chief
Baron Pollock, in the Court of Exchequer, where
the Staffordshire Gaslight Company were the de-
fendants' it had been held so, although the nuisance
should be caused by others and not by the gas com-
pany. (The case having been subsequently found,
fully bore out the learned counsel's opinion.)
The case for the prosecution being now closed,
Mr. Morgan contended that under this act of par-
liament there must be absolute knowledge shown
to procure a conviction. The company he repre-
sented had no interest in allo wing this refuse mat-
ter, as it was called, to run away ; in fact, the con-
trary was the case, as it was of some value to them.
He urged that there must be some mistake among
the witnesses, and that instead of the liquid run-
ning out in the manner described, it had simply
trickled down the wall from the pipe while being
disharged into the barge. Moreover, if the com-
pany had had a desire to let this matter run into the
Thames why should they select a time when every-
one could notice it—viz., low water, as had been de-
scribed by the witnesses ? He eoncludedby complain-
ing of the manner in which so large a body as the
Thames Conservancy had got up this case, the offence
imputed to his clients depending upon the testi-
mony of labouring men, who might have tampered
with the samples before giving them to their em-
ployers. He then called
Mr. Henry Bannister, who said he was the do-
puty -superintendent of the gas company, in whose
employ he had been 13 years. He received an inti-
mation that there was a leakage on the 13th of
March, and men were at once sent down to attend
to it. There was no communication whatever be-
tween the liquor pipe and drain. This he knew of
his own knowledge, as ho had superintended the
laying down of the liquor pipe, In doing so the
workmen had not come in contact with the drain
pipe. Sewage only flowed through it, and it had no
connection with their works. The liquor pipe con-
veyed the whole of their gas liquor away to the
wharf, whence it was discharged into barges. This
gas liquor was a very valuable commodity, as they
sold it ; it was not, therefore, to their interest to
let it run into the Thames, as so much lost was so
much loss to them.
Cross-examined—The drain communicates in no
way with our works.
Mr. Thomas Barkworth was then called, and said
he resided at the wharf, and looked after the pipe
there ; he saw a slight leakage, and communicated
with the works, when it was set aright. The leak-
age could not have existed any length of time.
Mr. Sleigh having then replied,
Mr. Paynter observed that he must take time to
consider his judgment, and adjourned the case for
that purpose.

SOUTHWARK.—A repulsive looking woman,
named Mary Ann West, was charged with stealing
a child.

Eliza Lett, a very poor but decent looking wo-
man, with an infant wrapped up closely in her arms,
said that she lodged at No. 13, Suffolk-court, in the
Mint. On Tuesday afternoon, while out after
work, she met the prisoner, who told her that she
was in great distress, and had no home to go to.
Witness took her home, and after giving her a por-
tion of her dinner, told her she might have part of
her room until she provided herself with a better
home. The prisoner seemed thankful for the offer,
and said she would assist her in any way she could.
About seven o'clock witness had occasion to go out,
when she wrapped up the baby in her cloak and.
handed it to the prisoner, begging her to keep him
quiet until she returned. About half an hour after-
wards witness came back, when she was surprised
to find the prisoner and her baby gone. She in-
stantly ran about the neighbourhood, and gave
information at the station house, and that morning
she discovered the prisoner in bed with witness's
baby, in the workhouse.
Martin, the porter of St. George's workhouse, said
that about half-past ten o'clock on the previous
night the prisoner knocked at the door and asked
for admission. She had the child in her arms, and
said that she had walked up from Gravesend with
it that afternoon, and that she was so weary and
exhausted that she could get no further. Although
the house was closed for the night he got the keys
and at once admitted her and the child. She gave
her name as Ann Machner, and said that the child
was her own, and was twelve months old. In
the morning, when the time arrived . for the
casuals to leave the house, she said she was very
unwell, and that she had no nourishment to give
the child from the breast. Witness sent for the
surgeon of the house, when Dr. Brown saw her, and
advised that she and the child should remain in the
house for a few days. The prisoner was then taken
into one of the wards by the assistant matron. At
12 o'clock the prosecutrix came to the gate in
state of great excitement, stating that she had lost
her child, and gave such a description of the circum-
stances that he at once suspected that the child the
prisoner. had was hers. He accordingly,took her
htoedthweitwhahrde,r wehhielrde,
and
de
gave
eoghneir ntseidt e
custody. Pl*o
Mr. Burcham asked the prisoner what answer
she had to make to the charge ? isone r 112
The prisoner replied, nothing, only she was very
drunk.
Martin denied that. He should not have ad-
mitted her had she been so, but have given her in
custody to the police, and taken care of the child.
pThe prosecutrix here said that when she gave the
prisoner the child it was wrapped in a warm cloak.
That was now gone.
Mr. Burcham asked Martin whether the cloak
was on the child when he admitted the prisoner?
Martin replied that he could not tell, as the pri-
soner had the child wrapped in the end of her
shawl. The assistant matron would be able to
answer that question.
Mr. Burcham accordingly remanded the prisoner
for the attendance of the assistant matron.

COUNI.RI' MARKE 2S.

1" -

SALISBURY—ArRIL 1.
At to-day's market wheat was in rather short supply
and still out of condition. Best dry parcels moved off at
about late rates, and other sorts generally NAre very slow.
Barley in fair supply, at last week's prices. Oats, beans,
and other articles no cheaper.