The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-12 00:00:00

THE SERPENTINE.

The select committee appointed by the House of Com-
mons to inquire into tho best modo of purifying the Serpen-
tine resumed °their investigation this morning in Committee
Room 16—Mr. Cowper, First Commissioner of Works, in
the chair.

Mr. Simpson, C.E., of the Chelsea and Lambeth Water
Companies, was recalled, and said that upon two occasions
considerable quantities of mud were excavated from the
Serpentine, and after it had been dried spread over the
grass as manure. The bulk of ths drainage of the adjoin-
ing district had been cut off by the construction of the tunnel
sewer near to Edgware-road, and it would be useless now
to collect the drainage of the park. The Serpentine for a
long time has never bean self-supporting. The Chelsea
Water Company had supplied large quantities of water for
some years past.

By Mr. Locke—The quantity of water supplied in the
year 1850 was 99,000,000 gallons ; in 1851, 72,000,000 ; in
1852, 72,000,009; in 1853, 61,000,000; in 1854, 68,000,000;
in 1855, 48,000,000 ; in 1856, 60,000,000 ; in 1857,
42,000,000; in 1858, 21,000,001; in 1859, 38,000,000; and
in the year ending the Ist of March, 1860, 20,000,000. A
small quantity was afterwards taken ,out to water
the roads with in the parks. The actual amount left
them in the last year was 18,000,000 gallons. Con-
sidering all things, ha was not prepared to recom-
mend the abandoning the proposed system of filtration
in favour of the proposal for pumping up th• water from
Duck Island. Because, if such a quantity of water was
taken from that place it would soon exhaust the natural
supply, and the sewage would ithen find its way there,
which he considered would be a very great evil. It would
be impossible to pump a million or a million and a half
daily from the place without admitting the sewage of
Westminster.

By Sir J. Shelly—lf that ;quantity of water had been
pumped from Duck Island for any length of time, the present
state of the water would shake him in that opinion. The
engine he had seen he did not think was capable of pump-
ing that quantity per diem.
By Captain Archdall—Supposing there was no diminu-
tion in the supply of water at Duck Island, he should
think it would not be good enough to put into the Serpen-
tine. The principal cause of the bad water in the Serpen-
tine he attributed to vegetable impurity. At the upper
part of the river ho had seen the water quite black, caused
by the admission of sewage.
Mr Jas. Easton, CE., a partner of the firm of Easton and
Amos, was next called—He said that he had been consulted
frequently by the Commissioner of Works as to the supply
of water. His firm was at present under contract to supply
all the Government offices and the Houses of Parliament
with water. He bad also been consulted as to the state of
the water in the Serpentine. In 1848 he made a report as
to the state of the river, estimating the cost of the works for
imptioving the water, and that in St. James's-park at £30,000.
He was again consulted by Sir Benjamin Hall, when he
was First Commissioner of Public Works. His firm at
present supplied the water in St. James's Park. There
was a sufficient quantity in the well from which the watt,
was pumped to supply the Palace Gardens, St. James's
Park, and the Serpentine. He had sent in an estimate to
Lord John Manners, when he was First Commissioner of
Works, to supply the Serpentine, and the ornamental water
in Kensington-gardens. The cost of so doing he put
down at £5,850.
This witness's examination occupied the attention of the
committee up to its adjournment.

Lei W ITVTELLIGE.NCE.--(2lis Day.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Peers present—tho Lord Chancellor, Lord Cranworth, Lord
Chelmsford, Lord Wensleydale, Lord Kingston, and
other Peers.

HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE DEANS

AND CANONS OF WINDSOR EX PARTE.

This is an appeal from a deoision of the Master of the
Rolls, 12th January, 1858, dismissing the Attorney. Gene •
ral's information.

By the information in this suit, the informant insisted
that the effect of the Acts of Parliament relied on was only
to give to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the same share
as the holders of the suspended mum's would have beev
entitled to receive, if such canons had Rot been suspended,
of the rents, profits, fees, or emoluments of the said College
Chapel.
The Attorney-General, Sir Richard Bethel, Q.C., is now
being heard for the appellant, and contends that he is bene-
ficiary entitled to £6OO a year.

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolla.)

PLUMSTEAD, WOOLWICH, AND CHARLTON PURE WATER

CONSUMERS' COMPANY V. DAVIS.--,TUDGMENY•
_ - -

The contention in this case was whether the Court of
Chancery or the Court of Bankruptcy had a concurrent or
separate jurisdiction in the winding up of this company
under the Registration and Winding-up Acts 19 and 20
Viet., caps. 47 and 110, and 8 Yid., cap. 110, sec. 60, 107,
108, and 109-110. By a deed of settlement in October,
1852, the company was formed and completely registered as
a limited company under the Act 19 and 20 Vict., cap. 47,
and the defendant was appointed official manager, and cer-
tain other persons trustees.
On the failure of the company an application was made
to Vice-Chancellor Sir Richard Kindersley for a winding
up older, and a question was raised whether the Court of
Chancery had jurisdiction under the winding up act.
His Honour the Master of the Rolls, on carefully consi-
dering the several clauses of the winding up acts relied on,
came to the conclusion that the Court of Chancery had no
jurisdiction in the matter, and dismissed the plaintiff's bill
without costs.

SHERIFFS' COURT.

GILLARD V. STANDON-A CATTLE FOOD COMPANY.

This was an action brought by plaintiff, trading under
the title of the United Kingdom Cattle Food Company, to
recover 1G 6s. for three cwt. of cattle food from defendant,
a shopkeeper at Wimbledon.
Plaintiff said he had, through his traveller, sold defen-
dant the food now sued for. Repeated application had
been made for the money, and plaintiff had received a letter
from defendant. (The letter was read, and was to the ef-
fect that defendant had not been able to sell any of the
food, and wished plaintiff to take it back.)
Defendant said ha never wrote the letter. A young man,
under the instructions of defendant's wife, sent it.

Mr. Haynes cross-examined the plaintiff, and asked him
who formed the company.
Plaintiff did not see what that had to do with the case,
but ultimately admitted that he was the sole proprietor.
He bought the company in January, 1859. The company
was originally carried on by a person in Hull, Yorkshire.
Gave nothing for the business, but bought the stock, and as
there was some show cards and bills, witness was allowed
to carry on the business under the established title.
The traveller was called, and said he asked defendant if
that person would take up the Wimbledon:agency. De-
fendant said he would, and 3 cwt. of food was sent down,
from which defendant might select his samples.
Defendant—l hav'nt sold an ounce of the food.
His Honour—He is your agent, plaintiff, and you can't
sue him. These proceedings are nonsensical.
Plaintiff—Then I suppose I can have my food back.
His Honour—Oh, yes. There will be a nonsuit, with
costs.
THE INSTALMENTARY PROCESS.-JOSEPH RA:NUL.
This was a claim for goods sold and delivered, and Mr.
Hubert Wood asked for time. A short time before the
goods in question were supplied defendant was bankrupt,
and he was no Iv willing to pay by instalments.
His Honour did not think he could apply the instalmen-
tary process to such a case.
Mr. Wood—lf defendant is oppressed, it will only break
up bim again. The debt is a comparatively small
one, and surely an order to pay it by two instalments would
not be going much out of the way.
Plaintiff said that the defendant was a retail dealer.
His Honour—Here is a case of a wholesale and retail
dealer, and the inatalmentary process cannot apply. De-
fendant must pay in ten days.

THE LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT WREN A FIRE

OCCURS.---REID T. HUTCHINSON.

This was an action to recover £lO for one quarter's rent.
Mr. Grey appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Buchanan for the

defend ant

Defendant had occupied, under a person of the name of
Searle, who had become bankrupt, and plaintiff had pur-
chased the reversion. Defendant had admitted his tenancy
by a letter, and it appeared that on the 17th Sept. a fire
broke out, and the premises, including defendant's first floor,
were entirely destroyed.
Mr. Buchanan cross-examined the plaintiff as to where
the street door now was.
Plaintiff admitted that it was up a court.
His Honour held that the plaintiff, in the case of a fire,
need not put himself at all out of the way.
Mr. Buchanan—That is a melancholy state of things
when a man is charged in this way.
His Honour—you recollect the case of the farmer who
had to pay for his farm under water during the lease,
Verdict ter tile plaintiff,