The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-23 00:00:00

COURT OF SEWERS.

_ - - - -
A special meeting of the Court of Sewers for the City
and Liberty of Westminster and part of the County of
Middlesex, was held on Tuesday, at the Sewers'-office,
Greek-street, Soho.

T. L. Donaldson, Esq., took the Chair at twelve o'clock.
The Court was made special for the purpose of receiv-
ing and considering the report of the surveyors as to
wkether the line of arch adopted for the main line of the
Ranelagh sewer, in Gloucester-road, Paddington, be the
best for the purpose, and detailing the causes which have
led to the necessity of rebuilding, with any other cir-
cumstances attending the failure of the sewer.
Captain Gaunt, the Chairman of the Commissioners
of Sewers for the Tower Hamlets, was sworn in a Com-
missioner.

Upon the suggestion of the Chairman a Special Court
was ordered to be summoned for Tuesday next, for the
purpose of considering the report of the surveyors as to
the covering in the King's Scholars' Pond sewer.
The surveyors of the Court presented their additional
report with respect to the Ranelagh sewer, in Gloucester-
road, Paddington, from which it appeared that, after
oening thirty feet and sixty feet of the line, they were
clearly of opinion that the accident that had taken place
was attributable to the wall not being properly backed
up, and to the bad materials used.
Mr. DOWLEY, the principal surveyor of the Court,
suggested, at the conclusion of the report, that the work
should be inspected by some persons of the highest pro-
fessional reputation, in order that they might give their
opinion as to the present state of the works, and the best
means of remedying the accident that had taken place.
Mr. HAWKINS, the last appointed assistant-surveyor
to the Court, stated that he had put his name to the
report because he understood that he was called upon to do
so by the regulations of the Court. He wished, how-
ever, to make some short explanation to the Court, in
order that they might understand the precise situation
in which he stood. Not having been an officer of the
Court at the time at which the sewer was built, he could
not speak with such certainty as to the cause of the acci-
dent as Mr. Dowley and Mr. Doull, who had superin-
tended the erection of the works.

After some discussion, it was determined that Mr.
Hawkins should be at liberty to withdraw his name from
the report that had just been read, and should make a
separate report of his own.

Mr. Hawkins then retired, and 'in th© course of an
hour he returned to the Court with a report of his own
drawing up, which stated that he attributed the accident
principally to the gradual subsiding of the ground upon
which the sower was built, together with the extremely
bad backing that had taken place of the walls. lie
considered that the execution of the building was not of
that sound character which a work of such importance
and such magnitude required.
On the motion of Mr. LESLIE, both reports, together
with the 35 sections that had been made of the defalca-
tion in the sewers, were ordered to be printed.
Several of the officers of the Court were then exa-
mined, among whom were Mr. Dowley, Mr. Bell, Mr.
Donll, Mr. Hawkins, and Mr. Philips, as to the state of
the works, and from their evidence it appeared most dis-
tinctly that the tio"alcations that had taken place in the
sewer were attributable, not to anymalformation of the
sewer, but to the inferior workmanship and materials.
that had been used in it.

The last witness, Mr. Philips, stated that a more
slovenly or disgraceful piece of 'workmanship he had
never seen turned OE by any person in his life. If the
walls had been properly backed up they would never
have given way. There were only 50 bricks in the arch,
whereas there ought to have been 54.

Mr. BIRD, the- contractor for the Company, said it
would be impossible to put so many bricks into the arch.
After some discussion,
Mr. CUMBERLEDGE moved that notice should be given
to Mr. Bird, the contractor, of the failure of the sewer
in Gloucester-road, and that the Court held him re-
sponsible, and expected to receive from him an imme-
diate prop6sal for its restoration. He was afraid if they
did not hold Mr. Bird responsible on the present occa-
sion, they would have their works very inefficiently per-
' formed in future. He thought Mr. Bird ought to come
forward, and say ho was sorry for the failure, and was
willing to take his part in rectifying the matter.
Mr. LESLIE seconded the motion.
M. LE BRETTON moved, as an amendment, that two
eminent civil engineers should be called in, and examine
and report on the state of the sewer.
Mr. MARRIOTT seconded the amendment.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY supported the motion of Mr.
Cumberledge. Ile thought the circumstances that had
been brought forward were overwhelming to call upon
the Court to give notice to the contractor.
After some observations from Mr. Harrison, Mr. F.
Byng, and Mr. Hawkes, the Court divided, when there
appeared—
For the amendment
Against it ll
Majority against the amendment
The Court again divided upon the original motion,
when there appeared—
For the original motion
Against it
Majority for the original motion —7
The original motion of Mr. Cumberledge was, con-
sequently, carried.
The Court then adjourned till Tuesday, the 28th inst

Tho model ship, intended for the practice of the
hays in front of the Royal Hospital Schools, at Greenwich, le
now completed, and punted aoas to become a real ornament.