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

POLIO iNTELLIGENC.;-April 2.

WESTMINSTER.—Mr. Paynter 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. Sleigh, instructed by .Mr. Frere, of the firm
of Frere and ttended to prosecute ; and Mr.
Morgan, of the Co.,firm 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, sec. 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 he 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 salphuretted 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 nature, 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 lie
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
11,1,d 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.
r The company. sold this gas liquor ; it was, there.
t
fore, to their inteeest to save it, and not let run
away, and the contertoarffixwmaso
abohuonsed
ttoothtaekpeipiet
away, which was done y
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 naost baelieve
that a gallon of liquor had run away altogether.
The leakage was extremely small, and
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
the liquid matter into the barge.
above discharging
William Gardner, clerk of the works under the
Metropolitan Board of Works, also gave similar
evidence. He saw refuse running from the drain
on the Bth of March, at a time when there was no
bai--0-0 near it. He saw liquor running again on
thebll;:ba but it was at that time mixed with
sewage.
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. Sleigh remarked that prenutiug Pitch to be

the case, no matter how the liquid got Into tne
Thames, tIO company were equally liable.
Mr. Payntey did not think such was the ;ftw.
Mr. Sleigh oNexved that Dr. Letheby hitd in-
formed him that trial before the Lord Chief
Baron Pollock, in th,,l Court of Exchequer, where
the Staffordshire Gaslioiat Company were the de-
fendants, it had been hak: so, although the nuisance
should be caused by others n. f
Ad not by the gas com-
pany. (The case having been a übsequently 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 knovlecige shown
to procure a conviction. The company
pre-
sented had no interest in allowing this recusse mat,he re-
ter, as it was called, to run away ; in fact, title con-
trary was the case, as it was of some value to Y.hem.
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 ben 1g
disharged into the barge. Moreover, if the corn -
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-
scribes:Thy the witnesses ? He concludedby 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 bays tampered
with the samples before giving them to their em-
uloyers. Ho then called
Mr. Henry Bannister, who said he was the do
se
of the gas company, io whose
employ ,(10 had been 13 years. He received so inti-
there was a leakage on the 130 of
'nation thaLt
March, and n.'en were at once sent down to attend
to it. There vos no communication whatever be-
tween the liquor ie;pe and drain. This he knew elf
his own knowledge, ao he had superintended the
laying down of the liquoi Pipe, In doing so the
workmen had not come in with the drainin
pipe. Sewage only flowed thiough it, and it had no
connection with their works. 'rhe liquor pipe con-
veyed the whole of their gas liquor away to the
wharf, whence it was discharged iDto barges. This
gas liquor was a very valuable commodity, as they
sold it ; it was not, therefe, to their interest to
let it run into the Thames,. as so much lost was so
much loss to them.
Cross-examined—The drain
way with our works. communicates in no
Mr. Thomas Barkworth was then Called,
he resided at the wharf, and looked af
'ter the
catepe
there ; he saw a slight leakage, and con. and saidip
munid
The leak-
with the works, when it was set aright. •
age could not have existed any length of tia.le-
Mr. Sleigh having then replied,
Mr. Paynter observed that he must take tie& 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 arras,
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 te•
Witness took her home, and after giving her a por,
tion of her dinner, told her she might have part 01
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 hull
quiet until she returned. About half an hour after'
wards witness came back, when she was surprisedi
i
to find the prisoner and her baby gone. She n
stantly ran about the neighbourhood, and eve
information at the station house, and that morning
she discovered the prisoner in bed with witness
baby, in the workhouse.
Martin, the porter of St. George's workhouse, gal.&
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, an,
t_
said that she had walked up from Gravesend vel:1
it that afternoon, and that she was so weary And
exhausted that she could get no further. Altheur
the house was closed for the night he got the keys
and at once admitted her and the child. SLie ga'o
her name as Ann Machner, and said that the chils
was her own, and was twelve months old. 111
the morning, when the time arrived for the
casuals to leave the house, she said she was
unwell, and that she had no nourishment to gib
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. Al'
12 o'clock the prosecutrix came to the gate in $
state of great excitement, stating that sho 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
in
h9r
to the ward, where she recognised the prison.
er
bed with her child, and gave her into custody
bat answer
Mr. Burcham asked the prisoner NY
she had to make to the charge ?
The prisoner replied, nothing, only she valls
drunk.
Martin denied that. He should not have a -
mitted her had she been so, but have given her Irl
custody to the police, and taken care of the child.
;The prosecutrix here said that when she gave the
prisoner the child it was wrapped in a warm cloak-k
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 prr
soner had' the child wrapped in the end of 114
shawl. The assistant matron would be able 10
answer that question.
Mr. Burcham accordingly remanded the prisone
for the attendance of the assistant matron.